Improving customer satisfaction in infrastructure outsourcing

Improving customer satisfaction in infrastructure outsourcing Influencing the different handshakes to increase customer satisfaction This is the Master thesis Part-time MSc General Management of Authors:

ing. Mark van Tilburg bc. Willem Kuilman

Breukelen, January 8

Nyenrode Business University Straatweg 25 3621 BG Breukelen Final Version

-II-

Improving customer satisfaction in infrastructure outsourcing Influencing the different handshakes to increase customer satisfaction This is the Master thesis Part-time MSc General Management of Authors:

ing. Mark van Tilburg (20090013)

……………………………………… bc. Willem Kuilman

(20090035)

………………………………………

Faculty Supervisor: Company Supervisor: Second Reader:

Prof. Dr. Andrzej Hajdasinski MEng Ir. Hans van Heffen Drs. Hans ten Rouwelaar

Breukelen, January 8

Nyenrode Business University Straatweg 25 3621 BG Breukelen

-III-

-IV-

Colophon Title: Sub Title: Version date: Authors:

Improving customer satisfaction in infrastructure outsourcing Influencing the different ‘handshakes’ to increase customer satisfaction Final, January 8th, 2012 ing. Mark van Tilburg Prinses Irenestraat 31a 4671 CT Dinteloord +31 6 13 26 65 09 [email protected] bc. Willem Kuilman Hongerlandsedijk 974 3001 LW Spijkenisse +31 6 42 01 27 88 [email protected]

Faculty Supervisor:

Company Supervisor:

Sponsoring Company:

Second Reader

Prof. Dr. Andrzej Hajdasinski MEng Nyenrode Business University International Center for Business and Diplomacy Straatweg 25 3621 BG Breukelen +31 346 291 724 Ir. Hans van Heffen Head of Infrastructure Outsourcing Services Papendorpseweg 100 3528 BJ Utrecht +31 306 891 205 Capgemini Nederland B.V. Papendorpseweg 100

3528 BJ Utrecht +31 30 389 0000 Drs. Hans ten Rouwelaar Nyenrode Business University Center for Management Accounting & Control Straatweg 25 3621 BG Breukelen +31 346 291 443

Disclaimer: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior consent of the authors.

-V-

-VI-

Preface This paper is the final assignment of our study at Nyenrode Business University. During our Master of Science in Management course, we have gained great knowledge from various professors and assistant professors. For both of us this paper also marks a mature new start in looking at issues, in work, as in life. During discussions with Hans van Heffen (our company sponsor), on the outsourcing process, a research subject soon became apparent: the outsourcing process. The end result gave way to a research question that forms the basis for this thesis. But first a short introduction about us: Willem Kuilman works for Capgemini Nederland B.V, within the Infrastructure Outsourcing Services division. A big part of Capgemini’s business is outsourcing, accounting for approximately 36% of the organization’s revenue (Capgemini, 2010). Willem has fulfilled several roles within the organization from technician, controller, to delivery manager. Mark van Tilburg is one of the owners of BusinessMonitor, a marketing research company based in the Netherlands. The work BusinessMonitor does is (customer) satisfaction related research, on behalf of a variety of companies. Capgemini, our sponsoring company, is a global leader in outsourcing. Its collaborative business approach allows the customer to achieve a better, faster and more sustainable result. Capgemini has more than forty years of experience, is presently operating in more than thirty countries and has a global workforce of over one hundred and fifteen thousand professionals, of whom fifteen thousand are active in the outsourcing industry. Capgemini is currently collaborating on some of the world’s largest outsourcing contracts. Leading companies entrust Capgemini as a results-driven business partner to solve their most complex business problems. Capgemini’s diversified approaches to outsourcing range from traditional engagements that focus on quick cost reductions to value-added transformational arrangements that impact deeper, broader changes within organizations. As customers’ needs are changing, Capgemini provides flexible and scalable solutions through over one hundred integrated delivery centers around the globe. We would both like to offer a word of thanks to all those who have helped us in our thesis. We would especially like to thank Ir. Hans van Heffen, Head of Infrastructure Outsourcing Services from Capgemini Nederland, for enabling us to undertake our research without restrictions. Furthermore, we would like to thank Prof. Dr. Andrzej Hajdasinski MEng who, as our faculty supervisor, gave us lots of advice and inspiration. It was fun to exchange ideas (and ‘Jantje’ jokes) with him.

-VII-

-VIII-

Executive Summary This thesis describes the diversified issues regarding the customer satisfaction during the outsourcing process in relation to the outsourcing lifecycle within Capgemini. Also, there are recommendations made to improve the processes to increase the customer satisfaction during the outsourcing lifecycle. The outsourcing lifecycle consists of different process steps. These steps are Sales - selling the service to a customer; Transfer - transferal and delegation of the old structure from the customer to the supplier; Transformation - changing the processes in place to the customer, to match the new processes that will be used; Delivery ‘soll’ - when the customers' processes are upgraded to match the processes used by Capgemini. With regard to the lifecycle, there are issues that arise from the literature such as; not being totally honest with regard to the real costs. Project issues such as Student syndrome starting too late; Parkinson’s Law - when there is time, all time will be used; Task convergence - when one task delays all other parts of the project. Change processes involve emotions regarding the change that is happening to the people working for the customer, generating friction between the supplier and the employees of the customer. Third party involvement also plays a role in friction when another company maintains the project and creates a boundary between the supplier and the customer. This research focuses on the internal processes within Capgemini while delivering its service to customers. ‘Handshakes’ are referred to; to describe moments where the work is transferred between the different processes during the lifecycle and project teams involved. The main focus is on the ‘handshakes’ between the different steps in the outsourcing lifecycle, with special regard to the processes after the deal has been closed, and a formal contract has been signed with the customer. The process steps involved are sales, transfer, transformation and the delivery ‘soll’. To gather data on the ‘handshakes’, multiple methods are used in this research to gain insights on the subject. These methods include literature study, qualitative interviews with senior management and quantitative interviews with the people working in the various departments. During the research it became clear that the main issue lay with the contents of the ‘handshakes’ and the people involved. During the ‘handshake’ different teams are involved but when the ‘handshake’ is finished, the old teams are not involved anymore. A second issue that arose, was that the people undertaking the project are also responsible for customer contact, which decreases the options to change the service during the process. Given the data collected, the main conclusion that can be made, is that during the entire process, a supervisory manager should be in charge to manage the entire lifecycle as well as the ‘handshakes’ between the different project teams in particular. This person should keep an eye on the ‘handshakes’ and make sure they are done correctly, but ultimately is not responsible for the customer relation, and just for the internal processes. One of the main tasks of this supervisory manager would be to remove the information asymmetry between -IX-

the departments by linking them closely together. Also the supervisory manager should be able to change the budget allocated between the steps in the process, so that budget overruns can happen when they solve issues further on in the process. As the supervisory manager is not involved with the process but only has an overseeing role, he/she should also be chairman of the steering committee to make the ‘handshakes’ as smooth as possible. Another important suggestion for change is that the responsibility for a customer should be split between the project team and a relationship manager, where the project team delivers the product/service, while the relationship manager maintains customer contact and corrects the project team when something goes wrong during one of the implementation phases, without being involved in the actual execution. This should make it possible for customer to address issues properly at the right levels, for example CxO’s on both sides linked to each other, without generating friction between the project teams and the customer. According to the collected data and its interpretation, the process could be improved by splitting the responsibility of the project and the customer. As such, it should make it possible for issues to be corrected faster and earlier on in the process. When the process steps are better linked, (because of management by a supervisory manager) with each other, the cost of the steps should decrease where the rework in the end of the lifecycle decreases. The supervisory manager should as such be able to shift budgets from one part of the process to another. A second optimization would be to check the specifications with the customer before the project actually starts; often the specifications are changing after the sales phase, as the world is moving so are customers’ specifications. Other companies that have a process in place where there is a ‘handshake’ between the sales department and the department that has to deliver the service/product to the customer. These companies could also benefit by adding a supervisory manager to the process who makes sure that the ‘handshakes’ are conducted properly and the sales department remains involved with the other steps as long as needed, to make sure that the expectations of the customer are met.

-X-

Table of Contents Preface

VII  

Executive Summary

IX  

Table of Contents

XI  

List of Tables and Figures

XV  

Abbreviations

XVII  

1   Introduction 1.1   Definition of Outsourcing 1.2   The outsourcing lifecycle 1.3   Research focus 1.4   Types of outsourcing and scope 1.5   The company problem statement and the research question 1.6   Conceptual model 1.7   Research design 1.8   Relevance 1.9   Structure of this paper

1   1   2   2   3   3   4   4   5   5  

2   Theoretical framework 2.1   The outsourcing lifecycle 2.1.1   We are going to outsource 2.1.2   The sales phase 2.1.3   The transfer phase 2.1.4   The transformation phase 2.1.5   The delivery phase 2.1.6   Prolongation or termination phase 2.2   Known issues from the phases in the conceptual model 2.2.1   Issues related to cost 2.2.2   Outsourcing seen as a project 2.2.3   Third party involvement 2.2.4   Emotions 2.3   The relation between the outsourcing lifecycle and Kübler-Ross 2.4   Hypotheses

7   7   7   7   7   8   8   8   8   8   9   10   10   11   12  

3   How the study was conducted 3.1   Research Subjects 3.2   Data collection 3.2.1   Phase one, qualitative data 3.2.2   Phase two, quantitative data 3.3   Reliability and validity 3.3.1   Qualitative phase 3.4   Quantitative phase

13   13   13   13   14   15   15   15  

4   Results of data collection and analysis 4.1   The results of the qualitative research

17   17  

-XI-

4.1.1   Question 1 4.1.2   Question 2 4.1.3   Question 3 4.1.4   Question 4 4.1.5   Question 5 4.1.6   Question 6 4.1.7   Question 7 4.2   The results of the quantitative research 4.2.1   Handshake between Sales and Transfer (HST) 4.2.2   Handshake between Transfer and Transformation (HTT) 4.2.3   Handshake between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ (HTD) 4.2.4   Decrease or Increase in customer satisfaction 4.2.5   Influence on the customer satisfaction 4.2.6   Differences between groups on the perception of the handshake by groups 4.2.7   ‘Handshakes’ viewed from the different groups 4.2.8   Discussion of the Hypotheses 4.2.9   Relation between the process steps and responsibility

17   17   17   18   20   20   21   22   22   23   25   26   26   27   27   29   30  

5   Conclusion 5.1   Recommendations 5.2   Further research 5.3   Management implications

33   34   35   36  

Appendix 1 - Open interview invitation

39  

Appendix 2 - Checklist open interview

41  

Appendix 3 - Summaries open interviews Interviewee A Interviewee B Interviewee C Interviewee D Interviewee E Interviewee F Interviewee G Interviewee H

42   42   44   46   48   50   53   56   58  

Appendix 4 - E-mail questionnaire

60  

Appendix 5 - E-mail questionnaire invitation

65  

Appendix 6 - E-mail questionnaire reminder

68  

Appendix 7 - Response distribution questionnaire

71  

Appendix 8 – Sub categories of the categories mentioned in question three

72  

Appendix 9 – Sub categories of the categories mentioned in question four

73  

Appendix 10 - Sub categories of the categories mentioned in question seven

74  

Appendix 11 – Total results of the questionnaire

75  

Appendix 12 - Influence of the ‘handshakes’ on Customer Satisfaction

87  

-XII-

Appendix 13 - Effect on customer satisfaction of the ‘handshakes’

88  

Appendix 14 - Analysis of the open “improvement” questions with regard to the ‘handshakes’ in the questionnaire 89   Appendix 15 – Analysis of the ‘handshakes’ given a bad ‘handshake’ between Sales and Transfer 92   Appendix 16 – Grade compared to the ‘handshakes’

93  

Appendix 17 – Deal compared with ‘handshakes’

94  

Appendix 18 – ‘handshakes’ compared to departments

95  

Bibliography

97  

-XIII-

-XIV-

List of Tables and Figures Figure 1 Process steps in the outsourcing lifecycle 2   Figure 2 Main types of outsourcing 3   Figure 3 Conceptual model 4   Figure 4 Process of transition based on Kübler-Ross theory (John M Fisher) 10   Figure 5 IT outsourcing Satisfaction Transition model 11   Figure 6 Hypotheses 12   Figure 7 Refined conceptual model 16   Table 1 The various departments and their involvement with the different ‘handshakes’ 16   Table 2 Legend of Figure 8 20   Figure 8 Different ‘handshakes’ in relation to customer satisfaction over time as seen by the interviewees 20   Table 3 Those who experience of the ‘handshake’ between Sales and Transfer 22   Table 4 Influence on customer satisfaction of the ‘handshake’ between Sales and Transfer 22   Table 5 Effect on customer satisfaction of the ‘handshake’ between Sales and Transfer 22   Table 6 Those who experience of the ‘handshake’ between Transfer and Transformation 23   Table 7 Influence on customer satisfaction of the ‘handshake’ between Transfer and Transformation 23   Table 8 Effect on customer satisfaction of the ‘handshake’ between Transfer and Transformation 23   Table 9 Those who experience of the ‘handshake’ between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ 25   Table 10 Influence on customer satisfaction of the ‘handshake’ between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ 25   Table 11 Effect on customer satisfaction of the ‘handshake’ between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ 25   Table 12 Effect on customer satisfaction per handshake 6 = High Increase, 0 = High decrease 26   Table 13 Influence of the handshake on the customer satisfaction 0 = No influence, 6 = Very high influence 26   Figure 9 Perception of the ‘handshakes’ by grade 27   Figure 10 Perception of the handshake between Sales and Transfer by departments involved in Sales phase 28   Figure 11 Perception of the handshake between Transfer and Transformation by departments involved in Transfer phase 28   Figure 12 Perception of the handshake between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ by departments involved in Transformation phase 29   Figure 13 Relationship between the lifecycle' phases and the responsible manager 30   Figure 14 Different ‘handshakes’ in relation to customer satisfaction over time 31   Figure 15 Kuilman-vanTilburg IT Outsourcing Satisfaction-Transition model 32   Figure 16 IT outsourcing Satisfaction-Transition model 33   Figure 17 The expected result of the improvements of the ‘handshakes’ on customer satisfaction 34   -XV-

-XVI-

Abbreviations PON RFP TOC SDD SDM DM HST HTT HTD SPSS IOS RBR OTACE® CxO

Platform Outsourcing Nederland Request for Proposal Theory of Constraints Service Delivery Director Service Delivery Manager Delivery Manager Handshake between Sales and Transfer Handshake between Transfer and Transformation Handshake between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Infrastructure Outsourcing Services Run-Build-Run On Time and Above Customer Expectations (Capgemini’s instrument for measuring customer satisfaction) Chief x Officer where x can be any sector

-XVII-

-XVIII-

1 Introduction Technically speaking, outsourcing acquired a business strategy in 1989 (Brown & Wilson). The very first company to outsource some parts of their business was Eastman Kodak, which was at that time in an extremely difficult financial situation, due to various mergers and acquisitions. The goal of Eastman Kodak was to cut IT cost by 50% by turning over its four data centers and three hundred workers to IBM (Loh & Venkatraman, 1992). IT outsourcing became a hot topic in board meetings as a strategic choice, due to the fact that this was a deal between two giants and therefore acted as a precedent. Before this outsourcing deal, there were many other companies who outsourced, but never received high exposure in the media.

1.1

Definition of Outsourcing

Firstly, we have to define what outsourcing means. There are several definitions of outsourcing: (Off-shore) Outsourcing as described by the Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration for the U.S. Congress and the Bureau of Economic Analysis as (OFF-SHORING: AN ELUSIVE PHENOMENON, 2006) (Kedia & Mukherjee, 2009): -

Outsourcing: firms contracting out service and manufacturing activities to unaffiliated firms located either domestically or in foreign countries

-

Off-shoring: firms shifting service and manufacturing activities abroad to unaffiliated firms or their own affiliates

-

Off-shore outsourcing: a subset of both outsourcing and off-shoring in that it refers only to those service and manufacturing activities of companies performed in unaffiliated firms located abroad

And the definition of the Platform Outsourcing Nederland (PON) (Delen, 2008): -

The transfer of services, where if applicable, the accompanying employees and resources are transferred to a specialized service provider and consequently the rendering back of those processes by that provider as services for the duration of the contract at an agreed upon level of quality and a financial compensation structure.

And the last definition used by Gartner (Gartner, 2011): -

Using external service providers to effectively deliver IT-enabled business process, application service and infrastructure solutions for business outcomes.

All the definitions cover the same matter, namely the use of vendors to execute non-core services formerly executed by the customers themselves. Now, having the definition of what we mean by outsourcing we can look at the major steps we recognize in the outsourcing lifecycle. -1-

1.2

The outsourcing lifecycle

Six major process steps can be identified in the outsourcing lifecycle (Delen, 2008), (Richards, 2007) as shown in Figure 1.

Transition Transfer decision by customer to start with sourcing

Sales phase

350

Transformation

Disentanglement Transfer

Thesis domain

Delivery Soll

Prolongation of contract or termination

Figure 1 Process steps in the outsourcing lifecycle

The first step in the cycle lies in the willingness of the customer to outsource a part or parts of their organization, based on a solid sourcing strategy. It is not only a cost effective factor although this may account for a major part of the decision by the customer, but is also an opportunity to look at alliances to make a proper vendor selection. Once the supplier is selected, the sales phase will start. This is the stage where all agreements are prepared and formalized with the customer. The sales department takes the initiative in this process. When the deal is closed, most times there will be a transfer of goods and/or personnel. This process of disentanglement and transfer will be referred to in this research simply as 'transfer'. After the transfer, the transformation process commences. This transformation is done in a cost effective manner by standardizing the services and support. Standardizing refers to the possibility to reuse existing solutions and share the existing infrastructure as much as possible without compromising the independence of the customer. This is called the Delivery ‘soll’. The term ‘soll’ refers to the preferred or desirable situation in comparing to the current situation what is called ‘ist’. These terms ‘ist’ and ‘soll’ have their roots in literature regarding change processes. When the contract term ends, it can either be extended, or the outsourcing process will repeat itself for the customer. In this case the existing supplier has to hand over the goods and in certain cases, its personnel associated with the account, to a new supplier or back to the customer.

1.3

Research focus

Our research is focused on the ‘handshakes’ between the sales phase and transfer phase, the transfer phase and the transformation phase and between the transformation phase and delivery ‘soll’. In this research the term ‘handshake’, refers to the transferal of all responsibilities, knowledge and other relevant information from one project team to the next one following the outsourcing lifecycle. This includes also the change of customer’s primary or secondary point of contact. A research boundary set is that the focus on the first handshake is from the moment the contract is signed and the handover from sales to the delivery organization commences until the delivery ‘soll’ Everything else regarding the outsourcing lifecycle will be considered ‘ceteris paribus’. The agreement between the supplier and customer is created between the sales, legal, and human resource departments and the delivery units, and is finally signed by both parties. The disentanglement can start directly. -2-

1.4

Types of outsourcing and scope

The first definition mentions different types of outsourcing. In general, we recognize five general types of outsourcing although some will diverse even more (Delen, 2008). In this research Greenfield sourcing, follow-up sourcing and the outsourcing are considered.

Figure 2 Main types of outsourcing

In Figure 2 the main types of sourcing are depicted, as are the different relationships between the supplier and customer. In this research the focus is on the outsourcing deal with the transfer of goods and personnel. All other varieties are kept out of scope. Furthermore, the focus is on the so-called Run-Build-Run (RBR) situation whereby the existing IT environment, delivery ‘ist’, is taken over from the customer. During this period the new environment is built after which the old environment is replaced with the new one. The new build environment is the delivery ‘soll’. This process will be referred to in this research as 'classical' outsourcing.

1.5

The company problem statement and the research question

All companies are looking for ways to improve their service. One way is to optimize existing processes to gain advantages. Capgemini is a company that always looks for ways to improve its processes and has asked us to investigate how the following company problem statement can be influenced. The company problem statement is: How  can  we  mitigate  the  dissatisfaction  between  the  customer  and  the   supplier  during  the  beginning  of  the  outsourcing  lifecycle  after  the  deal  has   been  closed?   -3-

Academic theory offers a lot of written material regarding the subject of customer satisfaction and the relationship with the supplier. Customer satisfaction is a measure of how products and services supplied by a company meet or surpass customer expectation. In general satisfaction is used as a measure between customer attitude and future intentions (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999). With regard to the relationship there is already a lot of knowledge in the literature so the focus of this research is not on the relationship with the supplier. But the focus is on the processes within the supplier boundary, resulting in the following research question: The  research  is  aimed  at  gaining  knowledge  and  insights  with  respect  to  the   influence  of  friction  of  the  ‘handshakes’,  in  the  process   sales>transfer>transformation>delivery  ‘ soll’  on  the  customer  satisfaction,   during  the  start  of  the  outsourcing  life  cycle,  concerning  the  customer  and  the   people  involved  in  the  early  stages  of  the  outsourcing  life  cycle.   The research will contribute to a better understanding what the impact is from the handshakes between the process steps sales>transfer>transformation>delivery ‘soll’ and how to improve and manage the ‘handshakes’ in the process more effectively to influence customer satisfaction in a positive way. This in its turn will result in a win-win situation for both customer and supplier in an outsourcing deal.

1.6

Conceptual model

When studying the outsourcing lifecycle in Figure 1, we notice that there are certain moments where work has shifted from one process step to another. These moments are what we call the ‘handshakes’ in the outsourcing lifecycle. The relationship between the process steps and the ‘handshakes’ forms the basis of our conceptual model as displayed in Figure 3

SALES

Handshake between Sales and Transfer (HST)

TRANSFER

Handshake between Transfer en Transformation (HST)

TRANSFOR MATION

Handshake between Transformation en Delivery ‘soll’ (HTD)

DELIVERY ‘Soll’

Customer Satisfaction Figure 3 Conceptual model

The aim of this research is to obtain an insight into how much the three ‘handshakes’ influence customer satisfaction.

1.7

Research design

The research is split into three parts. The first part is a literature study. The second and third parts are the more practical parts of the research. Part two is a qualitative study consisting of interviews with experts in the field, regarding the process and the different -4-

‘handshakes’. The interviews are conducted with senior managers and executives or former executives involved with the outsourcing business. The last part is a questionnaire submitted to employees of Capgemini that are involved in the outsourcing process.

1.8

Relevance

This research is relevant scientifically and managerially. First, we will make a connection between the different scientific approaches of this subject. In literature there is not much research found with the focus of ‘handshakes’ in the outsourcing lifecycle or similar processes. Secondly, the managerial relevance is that the insight into the ‘handshakes’ and the effect they have on customer satisfaction is clarified, which in turn makes it possible to control the process more vigorously. This particular method of research is also usable for other managerial questions regarding ‘handshakes’ and the diverse processes in a variety of companies and not only for the outsourcing lifecycle in the IT business.

1.9

Structure of this paper

Following the introduction, the first focus will be on the theories related to the research question, and there will be a discussion of concepts used. Also, a number of hypotheses will be exemplified in this part and what we expect from the research will be discussed. In Chapter Three the research methods are described; why they were chosen and what is expected from them. In Chapter Four the results will be presented and analyzed. Qualitative and quantitative researches are both presented. There is also a discussion regarding the hypotheses performed. In the last chapter, Chapter Five, the conclusions and recommendations as well as suggestions for further research will be presented. All interviews of this research have been done in Dutch; some parts of the appendices are in Dutch where they reflect actual answers of the respondents. Where possible the English text has been added to elaborate on the contents of the appendices. Two of the appendices are not translated entirely since they are the actual representation of answers given by the respondents; these are the open answers in Appendix 3 – ‘summaries open interviews’ and Appendix 11 –‘total results of the questionnaire’. Those open answers are summarized during the analysis. Appendix 8 – ’sub categories of the categories mentioned in question three’, Appendix 9 – ‘sub categories of the categories mentioned in question four’ and Appendix 10 – ‘sub categories of the categories mentioned in question seven’ are the summarizations of the open answers from Appendix 3 – ‘summaries open interviews’ and Appendix 14 ‘Analysis of the open “improvement” questions with regard to the handshakes in the questionnaire’ is the summarization of the open answers of Appendix 11 – ‘total results of the questionnaire’.

-5-

-6-

2 Theoretical framework Here the element of the conceptual framework is discussed in greater detail. The ‘handshakes’ will be described, as well as the known barriers and pitfalls that are influencing factors on customer satisfaction, are also pointed out. Secondly, we will elaborate briefly on outsourcing as a project phenomenon. Finally, the emotional response to change and the relationship with outsourcing as an anticipated behavior is discussed.

2.1

The outsourcing lifecycle

In this section the outsourcing lifecycle will be described. Companies decide to outsource parts of their business; they are obtaining services from an external resource (Brown & Wilson, 2005). 2.1.1

We are going to outsource

The reasons companies outsource part of their business is diverse, but all come back to the question of costs, as was the case in our example in the introduction, where Eastman Kodak was in financial difficulties. Some other companies have internal managerial challenges, like adequately managing an IT department or want to reduce their staff. Today, more companies use outsourcing as a strategic solution instead as a tactical. They want to outsource the burden of simple managerial work, allowing them to focus on the more core competences of the business. The commonality is that to enter the outsourcing lifecycle, they must first decide that they want to transfer parts of their business to a supplier. 2.1.2

The sales phase

In this phase, the scope of the deal is established, the request for proposal (RfP) is developed and the customer assesses the responses from suppliers. During this phase it is common for sales to try to persuade the delivery organization in accepting exemptions in what it can deliver. Finally, a vendor is chosen and the negotiating part of the sales phase will commence. During this phase agreements are put on paper and boundaries are set and both parties sign the agreement. Once the signatures are exchanged, the implementation can start. 2.1.3

The transfer phase

This phase consists of two sub phases. The first one is the disentanglement of the services, personnel, and hardware and software assets upon transfer to the supplier. In this stage the customer does not notice a big difference in the service provision. It can be said they get their former service but at a lower cost. The supplier will slowly start to improve parts of the service to make it more robust when possible but great changes are not to be expected. It is a learning curve for the supplier, as in this phase he/she begins to get an idea of what is acquired despite the due diligence in the sales phase. Also the customer begins to know their supplier better. -7-

2.1.4

The transformation phase

During this phase the transformation to the supplier will start. All services are transferred to the supplier’s location and most of the existing services are renewed and fitted into the supplier’s organization. The customer is implementing a governance structure and is implementing the required interfaces to follow the standardized processes of the supplier. Examples are the incident and change process, which are formalized according to the contract, to ensure a smooth working of the flows at both sides. A well functioning organization will be of value for both customer and vendor. This phase of the outsourcing lifecycle is the most demanding. A lot of implementations are done in a short time span to make the environment leaner, as quickly as possible, in order to have a gain for both parties financially as well as operationally. 2.1.5

The delivery phase

This phase has the least impact during the outsourcing lifecycle. Environments are stable and all changes in the environment are done in a controlled matter to ensure that the environment will function on its best at the lowest possible cost. Most of the time this phase will continue between three and five years, depending on the total contract term. 2.1.6

Prolongation or termination phase

During this phase the contract will be extended with some changes or enhancements, otherwise the contract will end. The last choice will have significant impact on the relationship between customer and vendor. The most optimal scenario is for both parties to approach the ending negotiations in a professional manner, so it has less of an impact on all fronts and for as low a cost as possible. For the customer, the cycle will restart but with a new vendor or even a re-transition or back sourcing. When the contract is prolonged there will be some change, as the customer will most likely demand an upgrade on its environment as a price to pay for the awarding of the prolongation.

2.2

Known issues from the phases in the conceptual model

In this part the known issues of the outsourcing lifecycle, related to the conceptual model, will be exhibited and discussed. 2.2.1

Issues related to cost

As many outsourcing projects are started as cost saving initiatives, this will instantly create friction between the supplier and the customer. It becomes a zero-sum game where the price is so low that the supplier cannot make an honest profit and is not able to innovate and create real value for the customer (Weeks & Feeny, 2008). Outsourcing, as many other agreements, should be a partnership where there is a win-win for both of the parties involved. As a result, innovation can take place and the outcome will be better for both companies (Weeks & Feeny). They should seek outsourcing arrangements that can transform their business and increase value (Taylor, 2006). In the field of logistics it is -8-

common for parties to work together and give each other insight in their performances and processes. It goes even so far as pointing out that the supplier sees the turnover from their customer, to make it possible to react on the changes caused by production or sale of product. It is called Information Sharing (Lee & Whang, 2000) (van der Veen & Venugopal), which is in the lifeblood of the supply chain (Liker & Choi). Not being aboveboard is a big driver of friction between the supplier and the customer, when there is a cost based transaction. Friction can rise between the supplier and the customer, where they both know they are hiding costs that will benefit the customer or the supplier. The customer can hide things during the due diligence phase and the supplier can try to bill hidden fees that where not correctly incorporated into the contract (Weeks & Feeny, 2008). When the contract is cost based, it is also important to keep track of hidden costs such as time taken by management to transfer the tasks to the outsourcer but also costs that are going to be made if there is a delay in the process or it is more expensive to lay off old employees (Earl, 1996). 2.2.2

Outsourcing seen as a project

A project is usually considered with an end goal in mind. Outsourcing can also be seen as a project, in total it is a big project which runs multiple years or a small project when only considering changes which run a couple of weeks. Both types of projects have similar issues; however the impact is much larger on big projects that run for a long time. When a project is seen on its own there are some main key success factors, such as good project management, the setting of clear goals and benefits for the contractor (Dvir, Raz, & Shenhar, 2003) To accomplish a good score on these key success factors it is important that some of the main risks for project failure are mitigated before the project is undertaken. One of the most common reasons for project failure is ‘ambiguous specifications’ where there is either a gap between the contracted and the contractor, the supplier misinterprets the specifications or the specifications do not match what the contractor actually expects from the project. For instance, ‘it must be fast’ could be understood as if it feels fast it is ok, but the customer could have meant that it should support 1000 requests at once and handle these within five seconds each. Unclear or non-matching specifications will result in a negative score on customer satisfaction where the contracted supplier matched the requirements but not the real required benefits. In other words; the dashboard is green but the customer is not satisfied. Even if a project has a good project plan, the right requirements and a good project manager, there are still other reasons why projects can go wrong. Student Syndrome, Parkinson’s Law, and Task convergence are aspects that are mainly people related issues that influence customer satisfaction (Blackstone, Cox, & Schleier, 2009). • Student syndrome is starting too late on a task so all tasks get postponed. • Parkinson’s law relates to time management. It states that when there is plenty of time, a task will take up all time awarded for that task. • Task convergence is when one task depending on another that is delayed. There is a solution for task convergence, if you base the project schedules on the Theory of Constraints (TOC) principle (Goldratt, 2004). -9-

2.2.3

Third party involvement

When undertaking a project with a third party contractor the most important factor when handling a project, is to cut out the middleman. It is much more difficult to talk to each other if there is someone standing in the middle (Earl, 1996). Before the project takes place it is advisable to have a middleman to describe the project and create good specifications for the customer, but when the project starts they need to step aside to keep the communication lines as unclouded as possible (Taylor, 2006). 2.2.4

Emotions

As stated earlier, outsourcing can be seen as a huge project with many aspects and has a significant impact on the organization and the people involved (John M. Fisher, 2005). So, whatever the reason for outsourcing, emotions will take over where there are people involved, because most of the things they consider normal are going to change (Earl, 1996).

The Process of Transition Can I cope ?

At Last something s going to change !

What impact will this have? How will it affect me?

Change? What Change?

This is bigger than I thought!

Disillusionment I m off!! … this isn t for me!

Did I really do that

Anxiety

This can work and be good

Denial

I can see myself in the future

Moving Forward

Who am I?

Happiness

Gradual Acceptance Fear

Threat

Guilt

Depression Hostility

I ll make this work if it kills me!!

Figure 4 Process of transition based on Kübler-Ross theory (John M Fisher)

As with all organizational changes, outsourcing will also follow the five stages of death (Boerner, 2008) as described by Kübler-Ross (Kübler-Ross, 1970). An explanation for this can be found in the psychodynamic approach, where people tend to fall back on what they have learnt, their inner working model, when the changes they are exposed to are too much for them to handle (Schaveling, 2008). Most of the time, peoples’ reactions to any given situation is an unconscious one. It is a survival reaction. The reptilian brain is predominating and we will react conservatively to the changes (John M. Fisher, 2005). The five main stages of the Kübler-Ross model are -10-

denial and isolation, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance, which can be transformed to a visual representation of the process as shown in Figure 4.

2.3

The relation between the outsourcing lifecycle and Kübler-Ross

Change is emotional and as such it will follow (to a greater or lesser degree, the five stages of grief (Boerner, 2008)). As outsourcing can be seen as a change process, it means that the people involved will follow the Kübler-Ross model in this process. The other factor is customer satisfaction during the outsourcing lifecycle. Satisfaction is an emotion influenced by the change caused by the outsourcing lifecycle. As such, the KüblerRoss model can be transformed to a model to show how satisfied a customer is during the outsourcing lifecycle. This transformation is shown in Figure 5.

Satisfaction

Anxiety

Happiness

Fear Threat

Guilt

Depression

Gradual Acceptance

Moving Forward

+ 0 t Figure 5 IT outsourcing Satisfaction Transition model

The influence of the different ‘handshakes’ on satisfaction over time can be projected in a graph. The y-axis projects the level of satisfaction, and the x-axis projects time. The progression in the graph will follow the line in Figure 5.

-11-

2.4

Hypotheses

Based on the expectations four hypotheses have been formulated. Hypothesis 1: In case of a satisfactory ‘handshake’ between sales and transfer, there is a positive correlation with customer satisfaction. Hypothesis 2: In case of a satisfactory ‘handshake’ between transfer and transformation, there is a positive correlation with customer satisfaction Hypothesis 3: In case of a satisfactory ‘handshake’ between transformation and the delivery organization, there is a positive correlation with customer satisfaction Hypothesis 4: In case of an unsatisfying ‘handshake’ between sales and transition, there is a positive correlation with an unsatisfying ‘handshake’ between transition and the delivery organization. These hypotheses are depicted in Figure 6

Figure 6 Hypotheses

-12-

3 How the study was conducted This chapter discusses the methodology used, explaining why we opted for the methods used, providing an outline on who was interviewed for our research, outline of the methods we used to conduct the research.

3.1

Research Subjects

Qualitative research with in-depth expert interviews was conducted followed by a quantitative research approach, to relate the answers from the experts within the organization. This resulted in a broader view on the subject of customer satisfaction in relation to the different ‘handshakes’. The study started with expert interviews to get a better understanding of the outsourcing process inside the company. This part of the study was also initiated to gain knowledge on how the process followed differed from theory about the outsourcing process. Capgemini Infrastructure Outsourcing Services (IOS) is responsible for the Outsourcing lifecycle from the sales phase through to the delivery ‘soll’ phase. When choosing the subjects for the indepth interviews, the position of the subjects in the organization and their engagement in the outsourcing lifecycle were taken into account. IOS is responsible for the outsourcing life cycle for different customers, and they work in the different phases in the outsourcing lifecycle investigated, within the different teams. After this initial step, questionnaires were sent out to the people working in the various departments within IOS, with questions included concerning the ‘handshakes’ during the beginning of the outsourcing lifecycle. At first, in depth interviews were conducted, to gain knowledge about the process in the company, and to be able to ask the right questions to employees in the final part of the research. The final part of the research also related to getting knowledge with regard to the question of how the view of senior management differs from the view of the staff of the different departments within Capgemini.

3.2

Data collection

This section describes how the data is collected from the different respondents in the research phases. 3.2.1

Phase one, qualitative data

By interviewing people of different levels, qualitative data was collected. The groups of respondents are based in Utrecht, in The Netherlands. Expert interviews were conducted with respondents working in infrastructure outsourcing for at least 10 years, assuming that as a result, they have more experience and in-depth knowledge within the field. The first part of the study was mainly focused on the process itself and how people perceived the process applied within IOS. Hereafter, a second study was done to see if the ‘handshakes’ between the process steps are of any influence on the process, and how they can be improved to create better customer satisfaction. The time used for face-to-face interviews was between forty-five minutes and an hour. -13-

The structure of the interview was as follows; a short introduction about the subject, after which the questions from the checklist were posed (the questions can be found in the checklist as presented in Appendix 2 – ‘checklist open interviews’). The first question of the checklist is to determine who is responsible for the Transfer-Transformation-Delivery process. Another research area looked at what the main issues in the process were, in relation to customer satisfaction, so the focus is on the issues as the experts see them. Questions with regard to the issues in the process, concerning the customer supplier relationship were asked, because the issues for customer satisfaction can differ from those in the customer supplier relationship. After these questions, some additional questions were asked in relation to the ‘handshakes’ between the different teams working in the lifecycle. With regard to these, it is interesting to establish if there is a generic time frame when these ‘handshakes’ are occurring during the process, and how much influence the different handshakes have on the lifecycle. The final part of the expert interview focuses on possible improvements of the entire lifecycle with reference to customer satisfaction but also the customer supplier relationship. 3.2.2

Phase two, quantitative data

For the web-based questionnaires we used the facilities available at BusinessMonitor, including real-time reporting and the possibility to check day-to-day response statistics. The BusinessMonitor tool made it possible to send out surveys to the respondents as well as remind those that did not respond. To ensure the privacy of the respondents, the survey is send out by a third party and not via Capgemini or one of their subsidiaries. The dataset was delivered without respondents’ names. The questionnaires are sent by e-mail in a Capgemini layout to emphasize that the research is done under the authority of Capgemini, and thereby decrease the likeliness of it being ignored. The e-mail was sent to all employees working in the departments involved in the outsourcing life cycle. The survey that was sent to employees can be found in Appendix 4 – ‘e-mail questionnaire’, the text used in the e-mail to the employees can be found in Appendix 5 – ’e-mail questionnaire invitation’, the text used for the reminder e-mail can be found in Appendix 6 – ’e-mail questionnaire reminder’. Experience in the research field at Salesforce Up To Data B.V., the provider of the BusinessMonitor tool, shows that the highest yield of responses can be reached within three days after when the initial invitation was sent. Secondly, Salesforce knows from prior experience that questionnaires sent on Tuesday have the highest yield in a business environment. We decided to send out the reminder e-mail one week after the initial request for participation. To make sure the employees would not be irritated with the questionnaire we decided not to send a pre-announcement but just an invitation to the questionnaire. In the invitation they also had the option to decline participating in the research. We contacted the entire population of employees working in the departments dealing with the outsourcings life cycle (393 employees) to get the best chance of reliable answers. After twelve days, one hundred and fifty-one (151) people responded to our questionnaire. Out of this figure, one hundred and thirty three (133) were complete and usable for -14-

analysis. The questionnaire used in this study was developed based on our research with senior management and experts working in the field. We invited respondents for the email survey on the 5th & 12th of December 2011. This resulted in a total response of 38,4%; of which 88,1% was usable for analysis. We changed the e-mail text used for the reminder compared with the initial invitation to make it clearer that the research was also conducted with someone working at Capgemini (Willem Kuilman).

3.3

Reliability and validity

This section describes the reliability and validity of the research conducted. 3.3.1

Qualitative phase

The first phase of our research focused on getting insights into the process of how the company functioned and understanding if practice matched theory. For our initial research ten employees were contacted. Eight of them responded to our inquiry and participated in a face-to-face interview. The invitation letter consisted of a basic outline of our research but not the actual questions to be asked. The invitation letter can be found in appendix 1 – ‘open interview invitation’, the checklist that was used during the interviews can be found in appendix 2 – ‘checklist open interview’. To make sure no language barrier was raised during our research the whole interview was conducted in the native language of the interviewee, (Dutch), in the expectation that this would lead to more robust answers since the language is fully understood by the respondents and researchers. The open-ended questions are used to get as much information as possible. Open-ended questions allow for the interviewee to answer from their own frame of reference rather than being confined by the structure of pre-arranged questions. For the Face-to-Face interviews, our initial sample consisted of eight people of which three with ‘expert’ experience in the field. All eight persons were interviewed with regard to the outsourcing process. This sample equals most of the upper layers in the IOS organization.

3.4

Quantitative phase

For the second phase of our research, an e-mail questionnaire is used to get a better understanding of how the people working in the different departments feel about the ‘handshakes’ in the lifecycle. All data is collected within IOS in the Netherlands. We kept our survey as small as possible, twelve questions maximum, to determine if the respondent sees the different ‘handshakes’ within the organization. If they did not see any ‘handshake’, three questions were presented to the respondent. To make sure no language barrier was raised during our research the whole questionnaire was conducted in the native language of the respondent, (Dutch), in the expectation that this would lead to more robust answers since the language is fully understood by the respondents and researchers. For our research we contacted all groups that are connected with one of the handshakes -15-

Handshake between Sales and Transfer (HST)

Handshake between Transfer en Transformation (HST)

Handshake between Transformation en Delivery ‘soll’ (HTD)

Customer Satisfaction Figure 7 Refined conceptual model

In Figure 7 the ‘handshakes’ depicted between sales and transfer has been abbreviated as HST (Handshake Sales-Transfer); the ‘handshake’ transfer to transformation has an abbreviation of HTT (Handshake Transfer-Transformation) and a ‘handshake’ between transformation and delivery has abbreviation HTD (Handshake Transformation-Delivery ‘soll’). In Table 1 the relationship between the ‘handshakes’ and the groups are shown. HST

Departments

R20 Infrastructure Outsourcing client team R21 Infrastructure Outsourcing Data Center Services R22 Network & Security Services R23 Infrastructure Outsourcing Transition, project & delivery Excellence R24 Infrastructure Outsourcing portfolio management R25 Service desk, Workplace & Service management R40 Transition Management R70 Sales – Business Development R90 Infrastructure Outsourcing Management R92 Human Resource Transitie

HTD

HST, HTT

HTT, HTD

HST, HTT, HTD

X X X X X X X X X X

Table 1 The various departments and their involvement with the different ‘handshakes’

A more detailed outline of the groups questioned can be found in Appendix 7 – ‘response distribution questionnaire’.

-16-

4 Results of data collection and analysis In this chapter analysis will be presented of the qualitative and quantitative researches in the order that they were conducted.

4.1

The results of the qualitative research

Most of the people in our expert interviews shared the same level of knowledge, experience and vision of the outsourcings process. During the research the process of ‘classical’ outsourcing was clearly outlined and determined how the experts perceive it. 4.1.1

Question 1

Our first question was ‘Who is responsible for the process Transfer-Transformation-Delivery?’ Our research shows that the interviewed experts all state that this process lies with the delivery subsidiary. The owner of this process is the Service Delivery Director (SDD). All managers from the sub-processes report directly or indirectly to the SDD, resulting in the ultimate responsibility for the outsourcing process with the SDD. 4.1.2

Question 2

After we determined who was responsible for the Sales Transfer-Transformation-Delivery process, we wanted to know if there are improvements possible with regard to the responsibility. ‘Who should be responsible for the process Transfer-Transformation-Delivery?’ Most interviewees agreed that the responsibility should not change. However, it was felt the process itself could be optimized by keeping the same persons from the different process steps engaged from the start of the transfer phase, until its end of the transformation phase where the ‘handshake’ to delivery ‘soll’ takes place. 4.1.3

Question 3

This open question gives an insight on the major issues of the satisfaction during the outsourcing process. ‘What are the major issues in the process Transfer-Transformation-Delivery with regard to client satisfaction?’ The answers are analyzed through categorization the answers. The sentences in the answer are judged and categorized. These categories are then categorized again. This iterative process is repeated until there are approximately eight main categories remaining. The top four categories are then used to give a relevant answer to the question The top four issues mentioned by the interviewee are; quality of the people involved, relation and communication, opportunistic behavior and governance.

-17-

Quality of the people involved Sales should keep deliveries demands in mind and not over promise to the customer. There should be a good fit between both sides. If there is no match between the people on both sides, changes will be necessary. Relation and communication People are working on the project but also need to maintain relations. The same persons should not be involved in both. If the task is not done right for the customer, they should discuss this with the relationship manager and not the technical departments. When a customer has a problem with the project there should be the possibility to contact someone at the other side with equal responsibility, (for example, linking the CxO levels on both sides together) so they can tackle the issue at the same level. Opportunistic behavior Sales people tend to sell anything to close a deal, without necessarily keeping in mind, the parts of the organization that actually have to deliver the goods/services. One of the reasons for this issue is the payment of a 'sales bonus' after the closure of a deal. Governance It is important to get the governance in place correctly. When a deal has been closed, key people are sometimes moved around within a company. To make sure the right services are delivered, it is important to align the right people on both sides. In Appendix 8 – ’sub categories of the categories mentioned in question three’ the sub items related to these groups can be found. 4.1.4

Question 4

Question 4 is aimed at getting knowledge with regard to the possible issues in the process influencing the relationship between the customer and the supplier. ‘What are the major issues in the process Transfer-Transformation-Delivery with regard to the client supplier relationship?’ The main issues that resulted from our expert interviews are Governance, Quality of the people involved, and the fit with the customer. Governance With regard to governance, one of the main issues is that the people that are doing the project are also involved with relationship management. Relationship management could be put with account management, so issues with the project can be discussed without frustrating the actual people involved. The CxO levels should be linked to solve issues on both sides faster and easier. Quality of the people Quality of the people involved is not really about the quality of the people but more about having the right person for the right task. Sales people will do everything to meet their targets, including selling more than can be expected from the supplier. It is a prisoner’s dilemma, due to the nature of the job. It can be mitigated as long as it is possible to manage the expectations of the customer. Most important is that the sales department does -18-

not promise something they have no knowledge of. Communication should be transparent, open and pro-active. Technical people are less communicative; this is a known fact and should be dealt with by guidance and education and by putting a good governance in place. When the specifications of a deal are determined, the people that are going to deliver the solution also need to be involved, so a solution can be created that matches the expectations of the customer as well as the expectations of the supplier. Some experts also point out that there are not enough qualified people available for some of the projects. Different types of FIT (Strategic, Business and Cultural) The FIT between the customer and the supplier plays a big role in issues between the two parties. With regard to ‘FIT’ there are some issues that can be determined. Departments that are going to deliver the solution have no knowledge or not enough knowledge, on how the customers’ business operates and need to be educated on the processes that are in place at the customer. Contract knowledge is crucial to be sure that the delivered goods/services match what was agreed on with the customer and not to be played by the customer. With regard to the alignment of the companies, the supplier must help customers who are not experienced enough in the process. The fit between the company, culture and the business of the customer play a big part of the issues on the relationship. In Appendix 9 – ‘sub categories of the categories mentioned in question four’ the sub items related to these groups can be found.

-19-

4.1.5

Question 5

Figure 9 is the result of question 5 where the different ‘handshakes’ are positioned on the satisfaction curve. ‘Where on the graph will you place the different handshakes between the process steps?’ Figure 8 shows where the interviewees plot the three ‘handshakes’ in relation to the customer satisfaction where the numbers in the graph are the different ‘handshakes’. Value 1 2 3

Label Handshake between Sales and Transfer (HST) Handshake between Transfer and Transformation (HTT) Handshake between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ (HTD)

Table 2 Legend of Figure 8

The letters ‘A’ to ‘H’ respond to the different interviewees. Two of the interviewees were not taken into consideration due to the fact that they were not able to pinpoint the stage in relation with the satisfaction.

Satisfaction

+ 0 -

A 1

H 1 H 2

B 1

CE 11

AF 21 HE 32 F 2CB 2 2

B 3 F C AE 3 3 33

t Figure 8 Different ‘handshakes’ in relation to customer satisfaction over time as seen by the interviewees

4.1.6

Question 6

Question 6 handles the timeline of the three ‘handshakes’. ‘When do the different phases ‘handshakes’ take place (in x months)?’ The conclusion of the answers is that there is no general understanding of the timeline within an outsourcing project. Every interviewee has his or her own view on what the average time line should be. It ranges from less than a year to three years, before the situation is normalized. Normalized relates to the satisfaction level of the customer being above null. There has been some dispute about this matter, because many interviewees do not see the transfer between sales and transfer and between transfer and transformation separately. For them, it is virtually impossible to separate the two when answering the question without the risk that the discussion will guide them toward an answer. The conclusion is that the question is not suitable for use. The answers of this question will not be further used in this research. -20-

4.1.7

Question 7

The last question: ‘How can the relationship between the customer and the supplier be improved, and how can the client satisfaction be improved, taking the different phases (Transfer-Transformation-Delivery) into consideration?’ resulted in a series of keywords regarding improvements of the relationship and customer satisfaction. These keywords are a result of a 3 time iterative process of grouping words from the different interviews Opportunistic behavior of sales The Sales department tends to sell more than they are able to deliver. New cutting edge technologies are sold to get a deal; cutting edge gives issues in the delivery phase where they need to implement services/products they are not experienced with yet. Communication Projects always have issues that make them longer than expected or uncertain issues that delay the project. To make sure the satisfaction of the customer is not decreasing very much due to delays, it is important to keep them aware of issues that occur during the process. Governance customer Within the customer organization there must be good governance in place. If people have issues with the outsourced parts of the business, they should discuss these first within the customers' organization to make sure those involved in the actual project, are not influenced by the wrong people. Quality of personnel The right people for the right job; if a technical person needs to undertake relationship management, it is likely that things will go wrong. Egos and emotion When something goes wrong in the process people need to admit that it went wrong and work on a solution together. During different steps, all kinds of things can go wrong that can be solved better with others involved. Maturity customer Customers that are doing outsourcing for the first time are not experienced and as such giving delays during the phases. To mitigate customers that are outsourcing for the first time, the customer should be helped with getting good governance, and more time should be allocated for the different phases. In Appendix 10 – ‘sub categories of the categories mentioned in question seven’ the sub items related to these groups can be found. A short summary of each face-to-face interview can be found in Appendix 3 – ‘summaries open interviews’.

-21-

4.2

The results of the quantitative research nd

The 2 phase of the research is aimed at getting knowledge with regard to how the ‘handshakes’ are perceived within the different departments working in the outsourcing lifecycle. The Likert scale questions are analyzed with a one sample T-Test using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the analysis with regard to the open question a list of terms that describe the points pointed out by the respondent is created. This list is grouped by term and ranked on the number of times a term has been used. The tables used for the analysis are presented in Appendix 11 – ‘total results of the questionnaire’. 4.2.1

Handshake between Sales and Transfer (HST)

The questions regarding the HST are aimed at getting knowledge about the ‘handshake’, is there a ‘handshake’, does this ‘handshake’ influence customer satisfaction, and if it influences customer satisfaction does it decrease or increase it? Of the respondents that see the HST, 76.8% of them see a ‘handshake’ that can be improved. 74.7% believes the HST has influence on the customer satisfaction. Currently the effect on the customer satisfaction score according to the respondents is a negative effect since the customer satisfaction decreases during the HST. Total N (%)

Experienced HST N (%) Yes, Good 22 (15.1%) 22 (23.2%) Yes, Bad 73 (50.0%) 73 (76.8%) No 51 (34.9%) 0 (0%) Total 146 95 Table 3 Those who experience of the ‘handshake’ between Sales and Transfer

No influence Low influence 1 (1.1%) 5 (5.5%) 6 (6.6%)

Influence High influence Very high influence N (%) 17 (18.7%) 50 (54.9%) 18 (19.8%) N (%) 17 (18.7%) 68 (74.7) Table 4 Influence on customer satisfaction of the ‘handshake’ between Sales and Transfer

N (%) N (%)

High decrease 3 (3.3%)

Decrease

Neutral

49 (53.3%) 52 (56.6%)

Increase

High increase 4 (4.3%) 2 (2.2%) 6 (6.5%)

34 (37.0%) 34 (37.0%) Table 5 Effect on customer satisfaction of the ‘handshake’ between Sales and Transfer

With regard to the question how the HST can be improved the respondents gave a couple of main areas where they believe the process can be improved, these are: alignment of expectations, standardization, and involving the delivery department in the sales phase.

-22-

Alignment of expectations A customer might expect something different than what is believed by the people that are delivering the service. To keep in line that what is going to be delivered with the expectation of the customer the expectations must be aligned. This keeps the gap between actual and expected small. Standardization During the sales process more standardized processes should be sold to the customer this includes standard services instead of product. Involving delivery in the sales phase To be sure that the sales contract only contains viable services the delivery department should be consulted early in the process. Everything can be delivered but the price and the time available should be in line with the services the delivery department can deliver. 4.2.2

Handshake between Transfer and Transformation (HTT)

The questions regarding the HTT are aimed at getting knowledge about the ‘handshake’, is there a ‘handshake’, does this influence customer satisfaction, and if so, does it increase or decrease customer satisfaction? Of the respondents that see a HTT, 77.7% of them see a ‘handshake’ that can be improved. 80.4% believes the HTT has influence on the customer satisfaction. Currently the effect on the customer satisfaction score according to the respondents is a negative effect since the customer satisfaction decreases during the HTT. Total N (%) Yes, Good Yes, Bad No Total

20 (14.8%) 70 (51.9%) 45 (33.3%) 135

Experienced HTT N (%) 20 (32.3%) 70 (77.7%) 90

Table 6 Those who experience of the ‘handshake’ between Transfer and Transformation

No influence Low influence 1 (1.1%) 4 (4.6%) 5 (5.7%)

Influence High influence Very high influence N (%) 12 (13.8%) 49 (56.3%) 21 (24.1%) N (%) 12 (13.8%) 70 (80.4) Table 7 Influence on customer satisfaction of the ‘handshake’ between Transfer and Transformation

N (%) N (%)

High decrease 4 (4.7%)

Decrease

Neutral

42 (48.8%) 46 (53.5)

Increase

High increase

31 (36.0%) 9 (10.5%) 31 (36.0%) 9 (10.5%) Table 8 Effect on customer satisfaction of the ‘handshake’ between Transfer and Transformation

-23-

With regard to the question how the HTT can be improved, respondents indicated a couple of main areas where they believe the process can be improved, these are: alignment of expectations, involve delivery in the transformation phase, standardization, governance and communication customer internally. Alignment of expectations A customer might expect something different than what is believed by those that are delivering the service. To keep in line, whatever is going to be delivered with the expectation of the customer, the expectations must be aligned. This keeps the gap between actual and expected, down to a minimum. Involve delivery in the transformation phase To make sure that the new processes for the customer are properly aligned within the delivering company. The delivery department should be involved in the transformation phase so they know early on what they have to deliver and can come up with better solutions and processes before it is all in place. Standardization The focus during the phase should be more on standardization, where can the standard services be delivered instead of creating a new tailored solution for the customer. Governance Responsibility should be clear to all, so everyone involved is aware of their respective duties. This applies to the customer as well as the supplier. Communication customer internally During the phase where the company’s processes are transformed into more Capgemini compatible ones, communication inside the customer should keep the end users aware, so they know what is happening.

-24-

4.2.3

Handshake between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ (HTD)

The questions regarding the HTD are designed at getting knowledge about the ‘handshake’, determining if there is a ‘handshake’, does it influence customer satisfaction, and if so, does it decrease or increase it? Of the respondents that see a HTD, 68.7% of them see a ‘handshake’ that can be improved. 81.1% believe the HTD influences customer satisfaction. Currently, the effect on the customer satisfaction score (according to the respondents) is negative, since the customer satisfaction decreases during the HTD. Total N (%) Yes, Good Yes, Bad No Total

31 (23.7%) 68 (51.9%) 32 (24.4%) 131

Experienced HTD N (%) 31 (31.3%) 68 (68.7%) 99

Table 9 Those who experience of the ‘handshake’ between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’

No influence Low Influence 0 5 (5.3%) 5 (5.3%)

influence High influence Very high influence N (%) 13 (13.7%) 43 (45.3%) 35 (35.8%) N (%) 13 (13.7%) 78 (81.1%) Table 10 Influence on customer satisfaction of the ‘handshake’ between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’

N (%) N (%)

High Decrease decrease 12 (12.6%) 40 (42.1%) 52 (54.7%)

Neutral

Increase

High increase 14 (14.7%) 1 (1.1%) 15 (15.8%)

28 (29.5%) 28 (29.5%) Table 11 Effect on customer satisfaction of the ‘handshake’ between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’

With regard to the issue of how the HTD can be improved, respondents suggested a few options; standardization, acceptation criteria and the involvement of delivery in transformation. Standardization The focus during the phase should be more on standardization, determining where the standard services can be delivered, instead of creating a new tailored solution for the customer. Acceptation criteria Before delivery accepts the ‘handshake’ from the Transformation phase, delivery should have had made clear what it expects from the Transformation department, so all required documents are in place and the delivery department can start working without knowledge gaps. Involve delivery in the transformation phase -25-

To make sure that the new processes for the customer are properly aligned with Infrastructure Outsourcing Services (IOS), the delivery departments should constantly be involved in the transformation phase so they know what they have to deliver, and can come up with better or improved solutions and processes before it is all in place. 4.2.4 Decrease or Increase in customer satisfaction To determine which of the ‘handshakes’ has the biggest decrease of the customer satisfaction we recorded the answers on the question, with ratings from 0 (as the highest decrease), 2 (decrease),3 (neutral),4 (increase), 6 (highest increase). We used 0 and 6 for the biggest outliners to make sure that the differences between ‘highest decrease’ and ‘highest increase’ are clearly visible, similarly for ‘highest influence’ and ‘high influence’. Used data can be found in Appendix 12 – ‘Influence of the ‘handshakes’ on Customer Satisfaction’. Comparing the mean between the different ‘handshakes’, the HTD gives the highest decrease in customer satisfaction. This is based on the mean and the spread of the values around the mean. HTD gives a mean of 2.379, which is the lowest when compared to HST’s 2.478 and HTT’s 2.477. The score for this question ranges between 0 and 6, where 0 is the highest decrease and 6 the highest increase. Handshake Handshake between Sales to Transfer (HST) Handshake between Transfer to Transformation (HTT) Handshake between Transformation to Delivery ‘soll’ (HTD)

Mean 2.478 2.477 2.379

Table 12 Effect on customer satisfaction per handshake 6 = High Increase, 0 = High decrease

4.2.5 Influence on the customer satisfaction To determine which of the ‘handshakes’ has the biggest influence on the customer satisfaction we recoded the answers on the question to 0 (no influence),2 or 3 (normal influence),-4 or 6 (highest influence). We used 0 and 6 for the biggest outliers to make sure the differences between ‘lowest influence’ and ‘low influence’ are clearly visible, similar for ‘highest influence’ and ‘high influence’. The data used can be found in Appendix 13 – ‘Effect on customer satisfaction of the ‘handshakes’ Taking the differences in means into account between the ‘handshakes’, it seems that the HTD has the highest influence on the customer satisfaction. This is based on the mean and the spread of the values around the mean. HTD gives a mean of 4.474, which is the highest compared to HST’s 4.055 and HTT’s 4.207. Based on a score of 1 to 5, where 0 is the lowest influence on the customer satisfaction score, and 6 is highest influence on the customer satisfaction score. Handshake Handshake between Sales to Transfer (HST) Handshake between Transfer to Transformation (HTT) Handshake between Transformation to Delivery ‘soll’ (HTD)

Mean 4.055 4.207 4.474

Table 13 Influence of the handshake on the customer satisfaction 0 = No influence, 6 = Very high influence

-26-

4.2.6

Differences between groups on the perception of the handshake by groups

The research does show a difference between the ‘grade’ of the people working and the perception of the ‘handshakes’, a small difference can be seen in group B compared to the other groups this could be explained that the people in group B are not as experienced as the people in the other groups. Due to the fact that the grade says something about the maturity of the employee, it can be stated that employees who have been working for Capgemini for a longer period of time perceive the ‘handshakes’ similarly (data can be found in Appendix 16 – ‘Grade compared to the ‘handshakes’).

HST:  Yes,  a  good   handshake   70%   60%  

HTD:  No  

HST:  Yes,  a  bad   handshake  

50%   40%   30%   20%  

HTD:  Yes,  a  bad   handshake  

HST:  No  

10%  

B   C  

0%  

D   E  

HTD:  Yes,  a  good   handshake  

HTT:  Yes,  a  good   handshake  

HTT:  Yes,  a  bad   handshake  

HTT:  No  

Figure 9 Perception of the ‘handshakes’ by grade

Comparing if people came from a deal, to the perception of the ‘handshakes’, did not result in a difference between scoring a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ ‘handshake’ (data can be found in Appendix 17 – ‘Deal compared with ‘handshakes’’)

4.2.7

‘Handshakes’ viewed from the different groups

For this part of the research the respondents are put into groups, according to where they work.. Someone working in the sales phase is put into the Sales group; likewise someone that works in the Transfer (T) phase is put into the transfer group; someone who works in Transformation is put into the Transformation group and finally, someone who works in the Delivery phase is put into the delivery group. These groups are compared to each other on the basis of ‘handshakes’. It is worth noting that a part of the respondents do not see a ‘handshake’ in the process. -27-

Handshake between sales and transfer viewed from the groups involved Although there is not much data available from the different groups, a visible difference can be observed between the Sales group and the others. The Sales group itself states that there is a good ‘handshake’ between the Sales phase and Transfer phase, the other departments state that this is different. This group also shows a big difference between the groups active in the Sale phase and the other groups. Departments  involved  in  the  Sales  phase  about  HST                             Other  departments  about  HST   Yes,  a  good  handshake   60,0   50,0   40,0   30,0   20,0   10,0   ,0  

Yes,  however  a  bad   handshake  

No  

Figure 10 Perception of the handshake between Sales and Transfer by departments involved in Sales phase

Handshake between Transfer and Transformation viewed from the groups involved. The respondents involved in the Transfer phase do note that the ‘handshake’ can be improved upon. Also, the results are more in line with the other phases. But due to the fact that the number of respondents on this specific ‘handshake’ is low, further research should be conducted Departments  involved  in  Transfer  phase  about  HTT                                       Other  departments  about  HTT   Yes,  a  good  handshake   60,0   50,0   40,0   30,0   20,0   10,0   ,0  

Yes,  however  a  bad   handshake  

No  

Figure 11 Perception of the handshake between Transfer and Transformation by departments involved in Transfer phase

-28-

Handshake between transformation and delivery viewed from the different groups involved There is a small difference between the Transformation and the Delivery phase with regard to the ‘handshake’ itself, although the difference is varied from the other ‘handshakes’; the People involved in the Transformation phase believe that the ‘handshake’ is worse than the respondents working in the Delivery ‘soll’ phase (data can be found in Appendix 18 – ‘Handshakes’ compared to departments’) Departments  involved  in  Transformation  phase  about  HTD                             Other  departments  about  HTD   Yes,  a  good  handshake   60,0   50,0   40,0   30,0   20,0   10,0   ,0  

Yes,  however  a  bad   handshake  

No  

Figure 12 Perception of the handshake between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ by departments involved in Transformation phase

4.2.8

Discussion of the Hypotheses

This part discusses the hypotheses as they were formulated earlier. 1. Hypothesis 1: In case of a satisfactory ‘handshake’ between sales and transfer there is a positive correlation with customer satisfaction 2. Hypothesis 2: In case of a satisfactory ‘handshake’ between transfer and transformation there is a positive correlation with customer satisfaction 3. Hypothesis 3: In case of a satisfactory ‘handshake’ between transformation and the delivery organization there is a positive correlation with customer satisfaction Hypothesis 1,2 and 3 are clearly shown in the collected data and as such are not rejected. Every step in the process has an influence on customer satisfaction and given the data, they all have a decrease in the customer satisfaction level. Hypothesis 4: In case of dissatisfaction between sales and transition there is a positive correlation with the dissatisfaction between transformation and the delivery organization. Due to the number of people that see all ‘handshake’ it is not possible to accept the hypothesis. Observed is that when the first ‘handshake’ is seen as a bad handshake, the other ‘handshakes’ are also considered as a bad handshake. The analysis can be found in Appendix 15 – ‘Analysis of the ‘handshakes’ given a bad ‘handshake’ between Sales and Transfer’ -29-

4.2.9

Relation between the process steps and responsibility

Reviewing the analysis, the conclusion is that the responsibility of all the process steps lay with different teams and managers, as depicted in Figure 13 and are overseen by the Service Delivery Director who is ultimately responsible for the complete profit and loss of the outsourcing process. Service Delivery Director

Transition manager

Sales manager

(Service) Delivery Manager ‘soll’

(Service) Delivery Manager ‘ist’

Sales

Transition

Delivery ‘ist’

Delivery ‘soll’ Figure 13 Relationship between the lifecycle' phases and the responsible manager

-30-

Another observation is that the relation between ‘handshakes’ and customer satisfaction differs between the respondents of the qualitative and quantitative research as can been seen in the graph of Figure 14.

Satisfaction

+ 0 -

11

22 3

3

Response qualitative research Response quantitative research

1 = HST 2 = HTT 3 = HTD

t Figure 14 Different ‘handshakes’ in relation to customer satisfaction over time

The view of the first ‘handshake’ is similar. The customer is still satisfied, but the first cracks are presenting themselves according to the respondents of both researches. The assessment of the second ‘handshake’ differs between the two groups. The respondents of the quantitative research seem to experience a more dissatisfied customer between the transfer and transformation than the respondents of the qualitative research. The respondents of the second research also experience that after the transfer to delivery the satisfaction of the customer is still declining which contradicts the experience of the interviewees of the first group.

-31-

The influence of the ‘handshakes’ on the satisfaction is corresponding with the Kübler – Ross model. The overlaying graphs are shown in figure 15 is called the KuilmanvanTilburg IT outsourcing Satisfaction-Transition model.

Satisfaction

Anxiety

Happiness

Fear Threat

Guilt

Depression

Gradual Acceptance

Moving Forward

+ 0 -

11

22 3

3

Response qualitative research Response quantitative research

1 = HST 2 = HTT 3 = HTD

t Figure 15 Kuilman-vanTilburg IT Outsourcing Satisfaction-Transition model

In Figure 15 the relationship between the ‘handshakes’ and the satisfaction level is displayed in relation to the stages within the Kübler-Ross model. The results of both researches fit in this model.

-32-

5 Conclusion In this chapter the answer to the problem statement is presented and the research question is answered. The aim of this research was to gain an insight into the dissatisfaction of customers during the start of the outsourcing lifecycle. The following research question was formulated: ‘The research is aimed at gaining knowledge and insights with respect to the influence of friction of the ‘handshakes’, in the process sales>transfer>transformation>delivery ‘soll’ on the customer satisfaction, during the start of the outsourcing life cycle, concerning the customer and the people involved in the early stages of the outsourcing life cycle.’ The research shows that the ‘handshakes’ between the different phases in the outsourcing lifecycle have a significant impact on customer satisfaction. Although the impact of the ‘handshake’ between sales and transfer (HST), the ‘handshake’ between transfer and transformation (HTT), and the ‘handshake’ between transformation and delivery ‘soll’ (HTD) are not the same, there are similarities in the cause of the dissatisfaction. In general, the keywords found in all three ‘handshakes’ are communication, governance, quality of the people (the right people on the specific task), opportunistic behavior of sales and egos of delivery. Furthermore, it became clear that the outsourcing lifecycle has a resemblance to the Kübler-Ross model. Customer satisfaction follows the same pattern as seen in Figure 16. This means that the process can be predicted and as such, reactions can be mitigated or the process can pass in a controlled manner.

Satisfaction

Anxiety

Happiness

Fear Threat

Guilt

Depression

Gradual Acceptance

Moving Forward

+ 0 t Figure 16 IT outsourcing Satisfaction-Transition model

When controlling satisfaction, the expectation is that the amplitude will be less steep as it will also be less deep. Alpha (α) is the gain in time of when the customer is satisfied again. -33-

The beta (β) is the gain of the effect on the degree of dissatisfaction of the customer. This will result in a customer who will be satisfied earlier during the process what will have impact on the profitability of the contract due to the fact that trust and loyalty of the customer will raise and additional projects could be awarded. Satisfaction

+ 0 -β α

t

Figure 17 The expected result of the improvements of the ‘handshakes’ on customer satisfaction

Secondly, we found fragmentation in the outsourcing lifecycle, which has a negative influence on the ‘handshakes’ between the phases. The interaction between the phases and the subsequent teams is low and gives a type of information asymmetry. Information asymmetry means that the ‘handshake’ is not complete. It is hard and may be impossible to transfer also what was ‘read between the lines’, as it is not formalized. The effect will be that the expectation does not match what is delivered. The third conclusion focuses on the growing dissatisfaction and fragmentation that results in a vexed or disturbed relationship. Due to the fragmentation of the outsourcing lifecycle a reliable relationship between customer and supplier is hard to realize. The customer is not talking to the same individual concerning the relation. Also, the relationship will be pressurized when the relationship is compromised by the cause of the dissatisfaction.

5.1

Recommendations

As a result of our research this chapter outlines some recommendations of how to optimize the outsourcing lifecycle, with the aim of improving customer satisfaction at the start of the lifecycle, through to the delivery ‘soll’. Firstly one needs to gain control over the fragmentation. Appointing a supervisory manager can solve this. The role of the supervisory manager is to assure that the ‘handshakes’ between the different teams and processes is done according to the

-34-

expectations of both parties. This will assure that there will be no ‘information asymmetry’ as described. The avoidance of the ‘information asymmetry’ will improve customer satisfaction, as it will also improve the working atmosphere within Capgemini due to the fact that irritation arising from the ‘handshakes’ and the number of dissatisfied customers is decreased. Both will have leverage on the profitability of the contract. People who are satisfied with their jobs tend to make fewer mistakes and are therefore more productive. Customers who are satisfied will grand additional work more easily. Secondly, the supervisory manager should have enough mandates to compel the project teams to finish their assignments according to plan. As transitions tend to overrun on cost (and time), the supervisory manager should have a budget to compensate for the overrun. The transition or program managers, are still accountable for the overruns, it will avoid the fact that the (Service) Delivery Manager is starting with a budget constraint. This budget for the supervisory manager should be 1% or 2% of the whole deal’s budget. The practicality of the budget should be examined more closely to match reality. The supervisory manager will also be the chairman of the steering committee as the representative of the Service Delivery Director (SDD). Currently the representatives of the SDD are all a part of the outsourcing lifecycle and bias is not unlikely. The supervisory manager reports directly to the SDD, as he/she is responsible for the profit and loss of the whole outsourcing lifecycle. It is important that the customer feels that they are being taken seriously during the whole lifecycle and not only during the sales phase. Attention from executives should provide for a solid relationship, which can be used when performance drops below expectations and satisfaction is declining from both sides of the relationship. Also, there are issues that could be addressed from the supplier, for example the need for a proper governance structure within the customer’ organization so that the right people communicate to each other on both sides to assure an optimal functioning relationship. Another recommendation would be to check with the customer, if the specifications are still applicable before they are implemented. This is especially more prominent when the specifications are drawn some time before the implementation, as the landscape of the customer is ever changing and what was needed yesterday could be obsolete tomorrow. The result of checking with the customer is that the expectations of the result will be in line with that what is expected and will have an impact on customer satisfaction (Huang, 2008). The expected result of the implementations will be an increased financial result at the end of the outsourcing lifecycle.

5.2

Further research

We recommend that in any future research, the focus from the customer will be researched in greater depth; it might be possible that there are issues that influence the processes such as: the level of resistance, obstinacy behavior of different parties involved in the process like third parties and former suppliers from customers. The role of the customer in failed -35-

projects should also be examined in more depth, so these issues can be tackled before they possibly occur. It should be determined what the reason is that specifications from the customer do not match the actual expectations of the customer, and how this can be improved. Given the collected data during this research on the outsourcing lifecycle, we estimate that the total cost of the lifecycle could decrease when ‘handshakes’ of the outsourcing lifecycle are managed firmly. The expectations will be met earlier in the lifecycle with less dissatisfaction as a result. The initial cost could increase, but the cost for rework further on in the process could be avoided what will result in lower total cost. We expect that the total cost of the lifecycle will decrease so the profitability of the outsourcing lifecycle can increase. This expected result should be determined with one or more pilot studies. It is advised that the customer satisfaction is continuously measured and monitored during the different steps in the beginning of the outsourcing lifecycle.

5.3

Management implications

This research can be applied to other companies where the main process can be described; one department sells the service/product to a customer and another department has to deliver the service/product. This results in the shift of the work and the customer (a ‘handshake’) between the different departments during a project. This could be either be a project organization where the sales department sells the project and then hands the project and the customer over to the actual departments that have to deliver the product/service to the customer. This would apply to organizations where Sales is split from the research development department or the project department. The proposed solution, where a supervisory manager is responsible for maintaining the ‘handshakes’ between the different departments and the normal managers will be in charge of the actual process but will not be involved with managing the ‘handshakes’ between the different departments, should work for these companies

-36-

Appendices

-37-

-38-

Appendix 1 - Open interview invitation The English version followed by the original Dutch version. Dear, To complete our study at the Nyenrode Business University we are writing our thesis. Our thesis subject is related to the sourcing lifecycle after the deal has been signed. To give us a better understanding about the sourcing lifecycle within Capgemini we would like to discuss the lifecycle with you. This will help us to determine the questions we are going to ask in a later stadium. We believe a meeting slot of one hour is enough. Below is a small explanation of the phases we want to research and what we want to discuss with you. Figure one shows the thesis area The steps after the deal has been closed and which we are going to research are • Transfer from Sales to Transfer • Transfer from Transfer to Transformation • Transfer from Transformation to Delivery We want to determine if these steps are of influence on the customer satisfaction.

Figure 1 Sourcings lifecycle

Figure 2 Relation client satisfactions

-39-

Original Dutch version Beste, In het kader van onze studie aan Business Universiteit Nyenrode zijn we bezig met onze thesis. Ons thesis onderwerp gaat over de sourcings lifecylce op het moment dat de deal gesloten is. Om ons een idee te geven van hoe de sourcings lifecycle wordt gepercipieerd zouden wij graag met u van gedachte willen wisselen om zo in een later stadium gerichte vragen te kunnen formuleren voor ons onderzoek. Wij schatten in dat een gesprek van één uur voldoende is. Onderstaand een korte uitleg van de fasen waar we onderzoek naar willen doen en waar we met u over van gedachten willen wisselen.

In figuur 1 laten we zien wat ons thesis gebied is. De stappen die na de deal volgen en welke wij willen onderzoeken zijn

• • •

Overdracht van vanuit sales naar transformatie Overdracht van transformatie naar delivery Delivery

Wij willen kijken of en hoe deze stappen van invloed zijn op de tevredenheid van de klant.

Figure 1 Sourcings lifecycle

Figure 2 Relation client satisfactions

-40-

Appendix 2 - Checklist open interview Question 1 Who is responsible for the process Transfer-Transformation-Delivery Question 2 Who should be responsible for the process Transfer-Transformation-Delivery Question 3 What are the major issues in the process Transfer-Transformation-Delivery with regard to client satisfaction Question 4 What are the major issues in the process Transfer-Transformation-Delivery with regard to the client supplier relationship Question 5 Where in time are the ‘handshakes’ between the process steps in the following figure?

Question 6 When do the different Phase ‘handshakes’ take place (in x months) Question 7 How can the relationship between the customer and the supplier be improved, and how can the client satisfaction be improved, taking the different Phases (TransferTransformation-Delivery) into consideration.

-41-

Appendix 3 - Summaries open interviews Interviewee A Question 1 - Who is responsible for the process Transfer-Transformation-Delivery Eerst sales welke daarna het geheel aan delivery overdraagt. (Tot de eerste hand shake is sales verantwoordelijk.) Wanner de deal helemaal rond is 100% naar delivery (IOS/DELIVERY na ondertekening) BCS (bid control sheet akkoord > dan gaat de verantwoordelijkheid naar delivery) Zodra alles naar delivery overgedragen is gaat sales verder naar de volgende klus. Question 2 - Who should be responsible for the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery Delivery, solution architect doortrekken voor de continuïteit +commitment, niet te snel ontvlechten en aanspreekbaar blijven ‘als’. Transfer = minimaal knowledge transfer Question 3 - What are the major issues in the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery with regard to client satisfaction Mismatch qua verwachting tijdens de sales fase. Doorlooptijd ‘kort’ is de tijd wel realistisch kan de klant dat wel in dat tempo?. Snelheid van leverancier niet in lijn met snelheid klant. Scherpe doorlooptijd + scherpe prijs door de salesafdeling + klant eis. Build run vs run build run (leercurve effectiever), run build run werkt beter, door een beter beeld van de as-is situatie Klant met 1ste keer uitbesteden is beter om daar run build run te doen Kwaliteit van de regie door de klant is essentieel (cmmi level?) 1ste generatie verwacht meer dan wat ze afnemen Kwaliteit van de transitiemanager, replacement van de man. Question 4 - What are the major issues in the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery with regard to the client supplier relationship Rimpels masseren, maar lek repareren niet. Multi level governance model, meerdere niveau’s contacten + voorgang goed communiceren. Schakelen op de juiste niveau’s. Pro actief + Openheid van zaken Kwaliteit van de engagement mensen (key posities) Transitie Manager + de managers in de governance. Toegevoegde waarde door rol in de governance. ‘echt snappen van elkaar’ Question 5 + 6 (is a drawing) - Where in time are the ‘handshakes’ between the process steps in the following figure? When do the different ‘handshakes’ take place (in x months)

-42-

Bij transformatie onder 0 Dieptepunt: TO-BE, niet wat ze wilden (delivery) Alles nieuw + blijven werken Elementen bij de klant, volwassenheid van de klant. Question 7 - How can the relationship between the customer and the supplier be improved, and how can the client satisfaction be improved, taking the different phases (Transfer-Transformation-Delivery) into consideration. Realistische planning + kosten door sales Juiste governance + Transitiemanager + bewezen oplossing! Klant kiest goedkoopste aanbieding, klant veroorzaakt zelf de spanning door de kosten die gehaald moeten worden. Goedkoper door ‘bleeding edge’ oplossing, maar is die wel betrouwbaar?? Delivery manager eerder vanaf de sluiting van het contract erbij betrekken Ofwel eerder de senior delivery manager en de DM to-be aansluiten in het traject.

-43-

Interviewee B Question 1 - Who is responsible for the process Transfer-Transformation-Delivery Directeur delivery = totaal verantwoordelijk Service Delivery Manager = laatste fase Transitie Manager = tussenstuk (groene gedeelte) AS-IS Transtie manager à Service delivery manager bij de weg naar de TO-BE Question 2 - Who should be responsible for the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery Team samenwerking in sales “big dealer” bid manager samen met de klant Transitiemanager al meegeschreven in de bid + afstemmen met delivery in grote lijnen afstemmen wat er moet gebeuren. Transitiemanager doet transitie als project ‘ontzorgen’ door bid team 3/4 maanden na de deal mee te laten lopen, liever zelfs nog tijdens het hele traject aan boord’ Transitie gaat altijd fout (15 jaar ervaring) Question 3 - What are the major issues in the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery with regard to client satisfaction Te opportunistisch + verborgen calculaties, offerte wel dit, dat verwachtings-management. Kleinste details geven zelfs issues/frictie. Let op de rol van de klant in deze Let ook op de ‘egos’ & emotie Te kort contract 3 jaar is te kort, minimaal 5 jaar nodig (afgezien van verlenging) Oude leverancier Stuurgroep Governance Strategisch – tactisch – operationeel Samendoen met klant Klantrelatie è Europese deals 2 kanten op – klant kent je klant ken je niet Als je de klant niet kent heb je een probleem Question 4 - What are the major issues in the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery with regard to the client supplier relationship Afhankelijk van het type klant Nieuw traject (1ste generatie)= standaard fout, relatie werkt goed bij een bestaande klant Drama transitie CxO levels met elkaar linken Ook al zijn ze niet tevreden blijven ze toch door de transitie fase ‘verlengen’ 3 jaar te weinig door 1 jaar transitiefase, 3 jaar om te bewijzen. Nieuw liefst minimaal 5 jaar of langer Question 5 + 6 (is a drawing) - Where in time are the ‘handshakes’ between the process steps in the following figure? When do the different ‘handshakes’ take place (in x months)

-44-

Question 7 - How can the relationship between the customer and the supplier be improved, and how can the client satisfaction be improved, taking the different phases (Transfer-Transformation-Delivery) into consideration. Betrek de SDM direct vanaf dag 1 bij het traject, je moet ‘hem’ vanaf de start meenemen. Zo kan het eerder vervangen worden. CIO niveau – contacten met elkaar leggen Goede stuurgroep op alle niveaus voor de klus Egos – emotie SDM direct in het transitie team opnemen Enige manier om succesvol te zijn Van af dag 1 betrekken 3 jaar is te kort 5 jaar is beter. 3 jaar bij verlengen is ok

-45-

Interviewee C We beginnen al onder de nul lijn. De klant organisatie weet niet wat er in de eigen organisatie spelt. Sales traject laat een indruk achter van Betrokken, Flexibel, Kennis Transitie gaat doen wat we belooft hebben. Echter wanneer de transitie manager niet van het begin af aan meedoet wil hij invloed op het proces. Transitie manager dient van af het begin mee te doen. Dit gebeurd in de praktijk niet door gebrek aan personeel. Question 1 - Who is responsible for the process Transfer-Transformation-Delivery Service Delivery Director, reëel in financiële termen. Vaak wel uitbesteed. Question 2 - Who should be responsible for the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery Transitie en delivery leggen verantwoordelijk af aan Service Delivery Director Question 3 - What are the major issues in the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery with regard to client satisfaction Klant zoekt: afspraken, reductie van de kosten, binnen budget Hoe eerder de klant zijn doelstellingen heeft bereikt hoe beter. Ook voor ons. Question 4 - What are the major issues in the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery with regard to the client supplier relationship Relatie à betrouwbare partner à escalatie punt 3 Klant heeft zijn info stroom niet op orde. Communicatie klant kant niet op orde Moet verbeterd worden Sales pas bonus of deel bonus na succesvol overdracht naar delivery. Dit heeft een incentive om niet te veel te verkopen. Sales blijft zo doende betrokken bij de klant, en levert niets wat door delivery over een paar jaar niet waargemaakt kan worden.. Dit dicht het communicatie gat wat er ander ontstaat door het wegvallen van sales Basis team is sales + transitie echter we hebben last van schaarste en daardoor zit transitie niet van af het begin op de deal en sales gaat weg na het sluiten die zouden daar ook moeten blijven waar ze beide tijdens het hele proces zouden moeten blijven zitten de klus tot een goed einde brengen. Door de financiele prikkel heeft de sales ook een bepaald belang bij het succes van de implementatie. Relatie blijft beter als er de zelfde personen blijven zitten à Verwachtingen zijn dan beter te managen eb misbruik van de Ja verus Nee is dan niet mogelijk. Omdat het de mensen zijn die het zelf afgestemd hebben tijdens het sales proces ‘we hebben afgesproken dat’ Cost heeft invloed op kwaliteit van de uitvoering. Transformatie is oplossing Solution manager à solution architect IOS doen ook de Finance en HR Daarna High level Design waarna Delivery architect het detail design maken. Hier is echter een groot tekort. Designs worden dan gemaakt door mensen van buiten de delivery organisatie. SDM speelt op de achtergrond een rol en moet pas op allerlaatste moment actief er bi worden gehaald als het project al bijna klaar is. Hij is verantwoordelijk voor de SLA -46-

Transitie manager is de Boeman en SDM moet de rust geven. Vaak wordt de SDM er te vroeg bijgehaald waardoor deze geen bezwerende invloed meer heeft op het contract. Bij sturen van verwachtingen ondanks een groen dashboard. Doen wat je zegt is vaak anders dan doen wat er verwacht wordt. Question 5 + 6 (is a drawing) - Where in time are the ‘handshakes’ between the process steps in the following figure? When do the different ‘handshakes’ take place (in x months) Respondent did not want to create the drawing Bij de klant gaat de manager acteren op datgene wat hij hoort in de organisatie. Als dat negatief is dan heeft dat negatief effect op de relatie. Transitie loopt van af dag 1 en loopt 6/9 maanden Niet langer om te zorgen dat de houdbaarheid van de diverse managers niet verloopt. 9 maanden na transitie weer in het groen. Dus 1,5 jaar na start project boven 0.

-47-

Interviewee D Handtekening als iedereen akkoord Sales zit op de relatie Delivery = fabrieksmatig, minder communicatie skills delivery heeft nodig: conflict en communicatie training Men ziet gedurende het traject de sales relatie niet meer terug Big dealer doortrekken en SDM aan het begin erbij trekken Transitiemanager vanaf het begin betrekken bij het traject skills + dezelfde koppen als tijdens het sales traject Question 1 - Who is responsible for the process Transfer-Transformation-Delivery SDM + SDD, TM Rapporteert hieraan Momenteel in ontwikkeling, standaardisatie van de TM, Hans Scholte (lvl 4) Question 2 - Who should be responsible for the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery Transitie expert betrekken hierbij (Hans Scholte) Question 3 - What are the major issues in the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery with regard to client satisfaction HR waar mensen in de scope zijn, begeleiding 2e generatie > tegenwerking oude leverancier, hoe samenwerken met de oude partij en dubbele kosten voor de klant. Wie is waar verantwoordelijk in dit geval? Communicatie met vertrouwen en de onzekerheid van de klant TM moet spel spelen in het evenwicht klant vs. CAP, de klant weer beter waar het over gaat. Afspraak is afspraak, + communicatie en goed project management Question 4 - What are the major issues in the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery with regard to the client supplier relationship Loskoppelen inhoudelijk en de relatie op het traject, CxO level ieder MT lid moet een paar klanten onder zijn hoede nemen. Hoe kom je samen door het dal. a. Geen verrassing voor klanten, te dienstbaar, klant moet opgevoed worden b. Je moet de dip plannen, Wanneer treed hij op en waarover (definieer de eerste crash en bedenk de oplossing) Replacement van de poppetjes om weer tevreden te worden a. Operatie b. Relatie op CxO (EXE) level c. Juridisch De dip is grotendeels verwachtingsmanagement Question 5 + 6 (is a drawing) - Where in time are the ‘handshakes’ between the process steps in the following figure? When do the different ‘handshakes’ take place (in x months)

-48-

Vrij vroeg: 1 maand, snel oplosbaar en minder issue. Na 6 maanden pas dan een groot probleem. 1,5 jaar dan niet meer te repareren = klant die weggaat. Question 7 - How can the relationship between the customer and the supplier be improved, and how can the client satisfaction be improved, taking the different phases (Transfer-Transformation-Delivery) into consideration. Relatie mensen TM vanaf sales erbij betrekken Transitie is onderdeel van delivery

-49-

Interviewee E Question 1 - Who is responsible for the process Transfer-Transformation-Delivery Directeur Delivery Question 2 - Who should be responsible for the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery Professional services [] (warme deken > as is voor x maanden laten draaien daarna gradueel implementeren > medewerkers tevredenheid onderzoek voor de overgenomen personeelsleden uitvoeren zodat de wijziging in tevredenheid meetbaar is na verloop van tijd, human resource management is heel belangrijk)

DD = Delivery Director AM = Account manager RM = Relatie manager DM AS-IS = Delivery manager AS IS DM TO-BE = Delivery manager TO BE Question 3 - What are the major issues in the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery with regard to client satisfaction Scheiding relatieverantwoordelijkheid klantmanagement vs project/product delivery Over winst, service integrators

-50-

Doel: periode ontevredenheid korter, dieptepunt tevredenheid lager

Question 4 - What are the major issues in the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery with regard to the client supplier relationship Dezelfde aspecten als bij 3 spelen hier een rol Question 5 + 6 (is a drawing) - Where in time are the ‘handshakes’ between the process steps in the following figure? When do the different ‘handshakes’ take place (in x months) Ingevuld met tijden:

-51-

Question 7 - How can the relationship between the customer and the supplier be improved, and how can the client satisfaction be improved, taking the different phases (Transfer-Transformation-Delivery) into consideration. Pro activiteit, gun effect is essentieel H1 : warme deken effect H2: verwachtingsmanagement alignen De “Relatiemanager” kan hierbij helpen HR speelt niet overal -> wel bij overnemen van de mensen, -> niet bij niet overnemen “zware demand” Greenfield -> extra spanning oud door een derde, oude partij kan tegenwerken

-52-

Interviewee F Question 1 - Who is responsible for the process Transfer-Transformation-Delivery Het RACI/VURI model is essentieel hierbij. == Verantwoordelijk vs. Uitvoerend verantwoordelijk. Delivery Director is V van uit delivery en de U is de delivery manager Delivery director TR: V Delivery Directeur U: programma manager D: V Delivery Directeur. U: Delivery manager Question 2 - Who should be responsible for the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery Question 3 - What are the major issues in the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery with regard to client satisfaction Continuïteit van afspraken, rollen opnemen in de sales + de mensen tonen Sale contract + relatie bouwen, key stakeholders bij CAP + programma manager + delivery manager, deal maker is niet essentieel Tevredenheid diepte curve: door kennis van de klant Klanten verwachten nog input door CxO level + kennis over ‘probleem’ bellen bij escalatie + werken aan de relatie (lunch etc.) Slecht nieuws wordt niet of niet tijdig doorverteld Question 4 -What are the major issues in the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery with regard to the client supplier relationship Question 5 + 6 (is a drawing) - Where in time are the ‘handshakes’ between the process steps in the following figure? When do the different ‘handshakes’ take place (in x months) Hand shake momenten worden steeds minder scherp. Het vloeit in elkaar over. Transformatie is nooit afgelopen. Iteratief proces

-53-

Question 7 - How can the relationship between the customer and the supplier be improved, and how can the client satisfaction be improved, taking the different phases (Transfer-Transformation-Delivery) into consideration. In het verleden hadden voor elk OS process apparte teams. Nu is er meer eenheid en klanten begrijpen ook steeds beter het process Ze willen ook meer en meer het process beheersen Er dienen dedicated mensen op het contract te zitten om de continuïteit te waarborgen. Dit wordt zelfs vastgelegd tijdens de contract onderhandelingen. Dit waarborgt de satisfactie van beide partijen Letter en geest vs verwachting Contract bouwen en relatie bouwen gaan samen Programma manager en delivery manager maken daar deel van uit Continuïteit factor! De relatie is professioneler geworden, Key personeel wordt vastgelegd in contract Klant heeft het gevoel dat/beeld dat ze op exec niveau niet meer in beeld zijn. Geef de waarheid è Relatie bouw + continuïteit + exec niveau uitbouwen Valley of Despair is het make or break moment Managers worden vervangen, dit is een dynamisch proces. Mensen worden beschadigd in het proces. Als bedrijf dienen we bewust te zijn van het OS proces. Vaak ook verlengen contract op dat moment. Het gaat niet altijd goed. StopGAP nooit doen à dat is al aan het werk gaan voordat de deal is gesloten. Dit leverd kosten op die niet goed te plaatsen zijn. Leg alle druk bij de klant om contract te laten tekenen. StopGAP maakt de klant “Lui”. -54-

KSF à Ownership à wie voelt zich eigenaar van transitie en delivery. Er zijn 3 krachten velden à Sales die verkoopt, Delivery maakt calculatie, Klant heeft aanvullende eisen en vragen Sales à we doen wel voor calc maar geen na calc om te kijken of we überhaupt wel goed gecalculeerd hebben en de calc te verbeteren. Nacalc is wel gebruikelijk binnen de bouw. Evalueer!

-55-

Interviewee G Inleidend verhaal: Er zijn kwaliteitshandboeken binnen Capgemini. De details beschrijven formeel het proces dat Capgemini volgt bij een OS traject. ‘De Kwaliteitsmanager’ heeft deze documenten. ISO normering speelt hier een rol. Question 1 - Who is responsible for the process Transfer-Transformation-Delivery Delivery begint bij transfer. à Delivery ist Question 2 - Who should be responsible for the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery Vaak is het de transitie manager welke is losgekoppeld. Wordt er later ingeschoven. Ideaal plaatje is de Delivery executive voor het gehele proces. Hij is de owner van de deal en P&L verantwoordelijk. Tevens verantwoordelijk voor de klant-tevredenheid. Question 3 - What are the major issues in the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery with regard to client satisfaction Sales mensen beloven meer dan dat we waar kunnen maken Vaak onvoldoende kennis Met name strijd tegen concurrentie De verkoper dient niet meer op het contract te zitten na het tekenen van de letter of intent. De contract onderhandelaar dient zijn plaats in te nemen. Dit gebeurt ook aan de klant kant. (vak apart) Direct terug managen van de perceptie begint hier. Question 4 - What are the major issues in the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery with regard to the client supplier relationship Transitie en later ook delivery kennen het contract niet. Ook de achterliggende zaken zijn onbekend. Dit levert vaak de Ja en Nee stellingname op bij uitwerking van het contract. IT-ers zijn bezig met hun klus en doen dat goed. Zij begrijpen alleen vaak niet wat de business impact is van zijn handelen Even een server rebooten op zondag van de winkel is toch dicht…..echter lopen alle voorraad batches in de nacht die afhankelijk zijn van deze server. Hierdoor rijden de vrachtwagens niet op tijd weg bij de distributie centra. Het niet kunnen inleven is een echt karakter trek van OS Wij dienen het bedrijf te ademen. Cultural Fit Business Fit Strategic Fit Cultural Fit à het HEMA gevoel krijgen binnen delivery Als een van de zaken niet aanwezig is dan is er een issue. Wij dienen bedrijfsondersteunend te zijn. Opleiden van mensen in Empathie. Evolutie van de klant gaat nu sneller dan de leverancier. Nieuwe trend is de proces verandering van de klant Question 5 + 6 (is a drawing) - Where in time are the ‘handshakes’ between the process steps in the following figure? When do the different ‘handshakes’ take place (in x months) Delivery start vanaf dag 1, -56-

Question 7 - How can the relationship between the customer and the supplier be improved, and how can the client satisfaction be improved, taking the different phases (Transfer-Transformation-Delivery) into consideration. Het allerbelangrijkste is de gebrekkige communicatie We communiceren slecht en te laat. We leggen niets vast Communicatieve skills van delivery is nihil Klant ervaart een ravijn. Sales communiceert veel en delivery helemaal niet. Rapportage is slecht en niet standaard. Door de lemen laag in de organisatie komt deze ook niet van de grond. What’s in it for me à marketing effect.

-57-

Interviewee H Question 1 - Who is responsible for the process Transfer-Transformation-Delivery Transition manager Delivery manager Beide onder aansturing van Delivery Directeur via een stuurgroep die wordt voorgezeten door lid MT. Question 2 - Who should be responsible for the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery Commerciële kant is het Delivery Manager. Zo laten we dat naar buiten zien. Delivery Director is echter P&L verantwoordelijk. Er is een maar en dat is wanneer er 2 groepen met een P&L zijn binnen Capgemini à er zou dan een hoofdaannemer moeten zijn. Complexiteit zit hem in de vele afdelingen binnen Capgemini. We kunnen slecht communiceren en coördineren. Question 3 - What are the major issues in the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery with regard to client satisfaction Klant ziet ook de gebrekkige communicatie en maakt er gebruik van Verwachtingen waarmaken en deze goed managen. Direct koude douche na tekenen contract. De Milestones moeten gehaald worden! We denken te veel met de klant mee. De collaboratieve Business Experience slaat soms door. Applicatie dossiers niet op orde IST is your own mess for less Nog geen goede processen om het e.e.a. in de hand te houden. Volwassenheid klant en leverancier is een issue We kunnen wel zaken vastleggen maar de klant moet het doen. à inrichten van eigen organisatie OTACE® is niet gemaakt om toegevoegde waarde te meten. We moeten met de klant meedenken. Wanneer we in de delivery zitten zouden we moeten gaan evalueren van af het begin. Question 4 - What are the major issues in the process Transfer-TransformationDelivery with regard to the client supplier relationship Relatie account governance. We blijven op IT niveau hangen. Governance nog onvoldoende op orde We zijn niet goed in proactief , account management is op de rid maar nog niet volwassen Prijs evaluatie over tijd is nu niet aan de orde maar zou je wel moeten doorvoeren. Dit om de klant voor de toekomst te behouden. Her onderhandelen van contract om de veranderende markt van je klant in ogenschouw te nemen. Question 5 + 6 (is a drawing) - Where in time are the ‘handshakes’ between the process steps in the following figure? When do the different ‘handshakes’ take place (in x months)

-58-

Question 7 - How can the relationship between the customer and the supplier be improved, and how can the client satisfaction be improved, taking the different phases (Transfer-Transformation-Delivery) into consideration. Dip korter en amplitude kleiner. Transformatie overdracht naar delivery op basis van herhaalbaarheid à korter en goedkoper Maar wij zijn ook consultants. à echt richten op service inrichting in transfer / transitie Wij moeten de klant meenemen op reis i.p.v. beide een reis naar het onbekende Delivery moet mee bouwen aan transitie. Te weinig formaliteit bij overdracht Accept to run documenten We kruipen naar elkaar toe maar het formelen moet ook. Het hangt allemaal erg op de experts…. Geen handboek soldaat.

-59-

Appendix 4 - E-mail questionnaire The questionnaire is originally in the Dutch language. The English translation is behind the sentences between brackets. The reason not to separate the Dutch and English versions is to keep the integrity of the questionnaire complete as it is based on the Dutch version Wij onderzoeken de stappen binnen de outsourcing lifecycle en we richten ons met name op het proces na het sluiten van de deal tot aan de delivery

‘soll’

(in figuur 1

benoemd als thesis gebied). (We

research the steps within the outsourcing lifecycle and we focus in particular on the process after the conclusion of the deal until the delivery ‘soll’ (in Figure 1 appointed as ‘thesis gebied’).) De diverse overdracht momenten hebben een zekere invloed op de klanttevredenheid. Het doel van het onderzoek is om te kijken welk overdracht moment het meeste invloed heeft op de klanttevredenheid en hoe deze beter onder controle gebracht kan

(The various handshake moments have a certain influence on customer satisfaction. The purpose of the study is to look at which handshake moment has the most influence on customer satisfaction and how this handshake can be better controlled.) worden.

Figuur 1 De

outsourcing lifecycle

(The outsourcing lifecycle)

-60-

Om de begrippen te verduidelijken geven we een korte beschrijving van wat wij

(To clarify the concepts we give a brief description of what we mean by the different stages of the outsourcing lifecycle.) • Sales: het uitgangspunt is dat het contract is ondertekend en dat de klant en Capgemini overeenstemming hebben . (Sales: the boundary is that the contract is signed and that the client and Capgemini have conformity.) • De transitie is verdeeld in drie fases; ontvlechting, overdracht en transformatie : (The transition is divided into two phases; transfer and transformation) o Ontvlechting : het losmaken en apart zetten van personeel, verstaan onder de verschillende fases van de outsourcing lifecycle.

hardware, software etc. van de uitbestedende organisatie (klant) zoals contractueel overeen gekomen is .

o

(Disentanglement: loosing and aside of personnel, hardware, software, etc. of the outsourcing organization (customer) as contractually agreed.) Overdracht: de feitelijke overdracht van de dienstverlening aan Capgemini inclusief de bijbehorende middelen en

(Transfer: the actual transfer of the service to Capgemini including its resources and staff to Capgemini. (Delivery ‘ist’)) medewerkers aan Capgemini. (Delivery ‘ist’)

o

Transformatie: het omvormen van de dienstverlening en het integreren van de overgenomen organisatie, dienstverlening en IT middelen binnen de bestaande processen van Capgemini met als doel de kwaliteit en volwassenheid van de

(Transformation: the transformation of the service and the integration of the acquired organization, services and IT resources within the existing processes of Capgemini with the aim to increase quality and maturity of the service and/or improve the service.) dienstverlening te verhogen en/of verbeteren.

•

Delivery is.

‘soll’:

de fase waarin de dienstverlening een stabiel continu proces

(Delivery ‘soll’: the phase in which the service is a stable continuous process.)

-61-

<pagina 1>

<page 1>

Ervaar je een overdracht moment tussen Sales en Overdracht?

( Do you

experience a handshake moment between Sales and Transfer?) § Ja, een goede overdracht (Yes, a good handshake) § Ja, echter geen goede overdracht (Yes, however a bad handshake) § Nee (No) <pagina 2, vorige vraag ‘Ja’>

<page 2, previous question ' Yes'>

Heeft de overdracht van Sales naar Overdracht, invloed op de

(Does the handshake between Sales and Transfer have influence on customer satisfaction?) klanttevredenheid?

Likert schaal 1-5 (0=geen invloed,2 ,3 ,4 – 6=grote invloed)

Likert scale (0 = no influence, 2, 3, 4 to 6 = high influence) Ervaar je gedurende de overgang van Sales naar Overdracht een toename of

(Do you experience an increase or decrease of the customer satisfaction during the handshake between Sales and Transfer?) § Likert schaal 1-5 (0=afname - 2,3 neutraal,4– 6=toename) (Likert scale 1-5 (0=High Decrease,2,3 neutral,4,6 = High Increase) § Rechts: Toename (Right: Increase) § Links: Afname (Left: Decrease) § Midden: Geen van beide (neutraal) (Middle: neutral) afname van de tevredenheid van de klant?

Hoe kan het proces tussen Sales en Overdracht volgens jou worden

(How can the process between Sales and Transfer be improved according to you?) verbeterd?

(Open question (text box)) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<pagina 3> <page 3> Open vraag (tekstvak)

(Do you experience a handshake moment between Transfer and Transformation?) § Ja, een goede overdracht (Yes, a good handshake) § Ja, echter geen goede overdracht (Yes, however a bad handshake) § Nee (No) Ervaar je een overdracht moment tussen Overdracht en Transformatie?

<pagina 4, vorige vraag ‘Ja’>

<page 4, previous question ' Yes'>

Heeft de overdracht van Overdracht en Transformatie invloed op de

(Does the handshake between Transfer and Transformation have influence on customer satisfaction?) Likert schaal 1-5 (0=geen invloed,2 ,3, 4– 6=grote invloed) Likert scale (0 = no influence, 2, 3, 4 to 6 = high influence) klanttevredenheid?

Ervaar je gedurende de overgang van Overdracht en Transformatie een toename of afname van de tevredenheid van de klant?

-62-

(Do you experience an

increase or decrease of the customer satisfaction during the handshake between Transfer and Transformation?) § Likert schaal 1-5 (0=afname - 2,3 neutraal,4– 6=toename) (Likert scale 1-5 (0=High Decrease,2,3 neutral,4,6 = High Increase) § Rechts: Toename (Right: Increase) § Links: Afname (Left: Decrease) § Midden: Geen van beide (neutraal) (Middle: neutral) Hoe kan het proces tussen Overdracht en Transformatie volgens jou worden

(How can the process between Transfer and Transformation be improved according to you?) verbeterd?

Open vraag (tekstvak)

(Open question (text box))

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<pagina 5> <page 5> Ervaar je een overdracht moment tussen Transformatie en Delivery

‘soll’ ?

(Do you experience a handshake moment between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ ?) § Ja, een goede overdracht (Yes, a good handshake) § Ja, echter geen goede overdracht (Yes, however a bad handshake) § Nee (No) § <pagina 6, vorige vraag ‘Ja’>

<page 6, previous question ' Yes'>

Heeft de overdracht van Transformatie en Delivery

‘soll’

invloed op de

(Does the handshake between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ have influence on customer satisfaction?) Likert schaal 1-5 (0=geen invloed, 2, 3, 4– 6=grote invloed) Likert scale (0 = no influence, 2, 3, 4 to 6 = high influence) klanttevredenheid?

Ervaar je gedurende de overgang van Transformatie en Delivery

‘soll’

een

(Do you experience an increase or decrease of the customer satisfaction during the handshake between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ ?) § Likert schaal 1-5 (0=afname - 2,3 neutraal,4– 6=toename) (Likert scale 1-5 (0=High Decrease,2,3 neutral,4,6 = High Increase) § Rechts: Toename (Right: Increase) § Links: Afname (Left: Decrease) § Midden: Geen van beide (neutraal) (Middle: neutral) toename of afname van de tevredenheid van de klant?

Hoe kan het proces tussen Transformatie en Delivery

‘soll’

volgens jou

(How can the process between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ be improved according to you?) worden verbeterd?

Open vraag (tekstvak)

(Open question (text box))

-63-

Laatste pagina:

(Final page)

Hartelijk dank voor het invullen van de vragenlijst.

completing this questionnaire) Mark van Tilburg Willem Kuilman Screenshots:

-64-

(Thank you very much for

Appendix 5 - E-mail questionnaire invitation The English version followed by the original Dutch version. Sender name: Mark van Tilburg Sender e-mail address: [email protected] Used template: “Don’t Forget” (company e-mail style) Subject: Questionnaire outsourcings lifecycle Date send out: 2011.12.05 Message: Dear #CustomData8#, We want to ask you to join a research of the Nyenrode Business University by completing a short questionnaire. We are researching the steps during the outsourcing lifecycle our focus is on the process after the deal has been closed and ends with the delivery ‘soll’. The transfer moments in the process have some influence on the customer satisfaction. The aim of this research is to determine which transfer moment has the most influence on the customer satisfaction and how this transfer moment can be improved. The questionnaire is completely anonymous,. All information is handled confidentially and none of the information will be linked to you individually. Link: Open questionnaire Thank you for completing the questionnaire Mark van Tilburg Willem Kuilman Link: I don’t want to participate in this questionnaire

-65-

Original Dutch version Afzender naam: Mark van Tilburg Afzender e-mail: [email protected] Gebruikte template: “Don’t Forget” in bedrijfshuisstijl Onderwerp: Onderzoek outsourcings lifecycle Datum: 2011.12.05 Bericht: Beste #CustomData8#, Wij willen je vragen deel te nemen aan een onderzoek van de Nyenrode Business Universiteit door het invullen van een korte online vragenlijst. Wij onderzoeken de stappen binnen de outsourcing lifecycle en we richten ons met name op het proces na het sluiten van de deal tot aan de delivery

‘soll’.

De diverse overdracht momenten hebben een zekere invloed op de klanttevredenheid. Het doel van het onderzoek is om te kijken welk overdracht moment het meeste invloed heeft op de klanttevredenheid en hoe deze beter onder controle gebracht kan worden. Deze vragenlijst is geheel anoniem. Alle informatie wordt vertrouwelijk behandeld en niets is op persoonsniveau herleidbaar. Link: Ga naar het onderzoek Hartelijk dank voor het invullen van de vragenlijst. Mark van Tilburg Willem Kuilman Link: Ik wil niet deelnemen aan dit onderzoek

-66-

-67-

Appendix 6 - E-mail questionnaire reminder The English version followed by the original Dutch version. Sender name: Mark van Tilburg Sender e-mail: [email protected] Used template: “Don’t Forget” (company e-mail style) Subject: Reminder questionnaire outsourcings lifecycle Date sent: 2011.12.13 Message: Dear #CustomData8#, Recently we have sent you an e-mail to join our research regarding the outsourcing lifecycle. It could be possible you didn’t see this e-mail, so we kindly ask you again to join our research of the Nyenrode Business University. For our thesis we are researching the process steps within the outsourcing lifecycle, our main focus is on the process after the deal has been closed until the delivery ‘soll’. The transfer moments in the process have some influence on the customer satisfaction. The aim of this research is to determine which transfer moment has the most influence on the customer satisfaction and how this transfer moment can be improved. The questionnaire is completely anonymous,. All information is handled confidentially and none of the information will be linked to you individually. Link: Open questionnaire Thank you for completing the questionnaire Willem Kuilman, Capgemini Mark van Tilburg, BusinessMonitor Students Part-time MSc General Management Link: I don’t want to participate in this questionnaire

-68-

Original Dutch version Afzender naam: Mark van Tilburg Afzender e-mail: [email protected] Gebruikte template: “Don’t Forget” in bedrijfshuisstijl Onderwerp: Herinnering onderzoek outsourcings lifecycle Datum: 13 december 2011 Bericht: Beste #CustomData8#, Onlangs hebben we je benaderd om deel te nemen aan ons onderzoek betreffende de outsourcings lifecycle. Misschien is deze e-mail aan je aandacht ontsnapt. Daarom willen we je vragen om alsnog deel te nemen aan ons onderzoek van de Nyenrode Business Universiteit door het invullen van een korte online vragenlijst. Wij onderzoeken, in het kader van onze afstudeer scriptie, de stappen binnen de outsourcing lifecycle en we richten ons met name op het proces na het sluiten van de deal tot aan de delivery

‘soll’.

De diverse overdracht momenten, binnen de outsourcing lifecycle, hebben een zekere invloed op de klanttevredenheid. Het doel van het onderzoek is om te kijken welk overdracht moment het meeste invloed heeft op de klanttevredenheid en hoe deze beter onder controle gebracht kan worden. Deze vragenlijst is geheel anoniem. Alle informatie wordt vertrouwelijk behandeld en niets is op persoonsniveau herleidbaar. Link: Ga naar het onderzoek Hartelijk dank voor het invullen van de vragenlijst. Willem Kuilman, Capgemini Mark van Tilburg, BusinessMonitor Studenten Parttime MSc General Management Link: Ik wil niet deelnemen aan dit onderzoek

-69-

-70-

Appendix 7 - Response distribution questionnaire Response distribution Response-justification (face-to-face research) Size sample: 25 Sample contacted: 10 Number of declines (do not want to participate): 0 Number of non-responses: 2 Number of good responses: 8

Response-justification (e-mail questionnaire) Population: Group R20 Infrastructure Outsourcing client team   R21 Infrastructure Outsourcing Data Center Services   R22 Network & Security Services   R23 Infrastructure Outsourcing Transition, project & delivery Excellence   R24 Infrastructure Outsourcing portfolio management   R25 Service desk, Workplace & Service management   R40 Transition Management   R70 Sales – Business Development   R90 Infrastructure Outsourcing Management   R92 Human Resource Transitie   Total

Population size: 393 Contacted initial invitation: 393 Total responses: 151 Total completes 133 After invitation e-mail that was send on 2011-12-05 Number of bounces: 0 Number of out of office: 19 After reminder e-mail that was send on 2011-12-12 Number of bounces: 1 Number of out of office: 12 Total at survey closing: 2011-12-17 Number of declines (do not want to participate): 25 Number of non-responses: 199 Number of complete questionnaires: 133 Number of incompletes: 36 -71-

N 37 182 33 47 8 41 6 22 8 9 393

Appendix 8 – Sub categories of the categories mentioned in question three Quality of the people involved • Quality and knowledge of the people involved • Ego and emotions • Knowledge of processes • Knowledge of client and her industry Relation and communication • Communication in general • Strategic, tactical and operation relationship • A deal is a deal • Thinking for the client Opportunistic behavior • Processing time • More soled than can be delivered • Managing expectations • Contract negotiations by sales instead of negotiators Governance • 1st generation outsourcing vs 2nd and further • Current supplier vs new supplier • Steering Committee • Maturity client vs supplier • Management organization / governance with the client

-72-

Appendix 9 – Sub categories of the categories mentioned in question four Governance • CxO levels are not linked, relationship should be between the CxO’s • Governance customer is assigned to the wrong people • Governance levels • Relation and communication about the project should be split • Split of the responsibilities between project and relation Quality of the people involved • Sales bonus bias • Sales not involved with the customer • Open communication /proactive communication • Quality of the transition manager + managers governance + engagement manager • Emphasis personnel • Introversion (technical people) vs. extrovert (sales) • Shortage ‘good’ personnel • Details in the design are not created by the people that have to deliver these FIT • • • • • • • • • • • •

Bigger base team as a solution Contract knowledge by all employees Being subservient Strategic/Cultural/Business FIT with the customer Knowledge about the customer’ market Change with customers’ market / stay in touch with customers’ market Supporting the company in its goals Employees Capgemini have lack of understanding 1e generation = drama / inexperienced customer Evolution customer vs. evolution Capgemini Transition is a drama Static contract vs. dynamic world + price not in line with the customer's changing market.

-73-

Appendix 10 - Sub categories of the categories mentioned in question seven Due diligence • Dependency on expert • Cheap due to bleeding edge is wrong • Customer role in cost based selection • Realistic costs • Realistic plans • Recalculation of costs • Contract building Communication • Pro-active communication • Communication on CxO level • Put relationship management by CxO level • Egos and emotions of people involved • Communication skills of the ‘technical’ people • Gap in communication between customer/sales and customer/delivery Unity from sales till delivery ‘soll’ • Involve Service Delivery Manager from day 1 • Involve Delivery Manager earlier • Don’t use the stop gap • Dedicated people/team on the project • Standardized process, save guarding knowledge • Correct governance between customer • Alignment of expectations • Open communication • Make transition a small part • Merge transition and delivery • Use the formalized process • Steering committee on all levels • Split between project contact and the relationship

-74-

Appendix 11 – Total results of the questionnaire Questions regarding the handshake between Sales and Transfer

Valid

Missing Total

Frequency Yes a proper handshake 22 73 Yes but no proper handshake No handshake 51 Total 146 System 5 151

Percent 14,6 48,3 33,8 96,7 3,3 100,0

Valid Percent 15,1 50,0 34,9 100,0

Cumulative Percent 15,1 65,1 100,0

Are you experiencing a handshake between Sales and Transfer?

Valid

Missing Total

Very high decrease Decrease Neutral Increase Very high increase Total System

Frequency 1 5 17 50 18 91 60 151

Percent ,7 3,3 11,3 33,1 11,9 60,3 39,7 100,0

Valid Percent 1,1 5,5 18,7 54,9 19,8 100,0

Cumulative Percent 1,1 6,6 25,3 80,2 100,0

Does the handshake between Sales and Transfer have influence on customer satisfaction?

Valid

Missing Total

No Influence Low Influence Influence High influence Very high influence Total System

Frequency 3 49 34 4 2 92 59 151

Percent 2,0 32,5 22,5 2,6 1,3 60,9 39,1 100,0

Valid Percent 3,3 53,3 37,0 4,3 2,2 100,0

Cumulative Percent 3,3 56,5 93,5 97,8 100,0

Do you experience an increase or decrease of the customer satisfaction during the handshake between of Sales and Transfer?

-75-

Hoe kan het proces tussen Sales en Overdracht volgens jou worden verbeterd? Door het toevoegen van de Service Delivery & Delivery managers tijdens de bidfase geeft de mogelijkheid om de bid te laten bieden vanuit de ervaringen vanuit de delivery unit. Na overdracht leest de delivery organisatie niet goed alle contractstukken, offerte en aanbestedingsstukken/klant documenten Volledig betrekken van de Delivery groep welke de dienst moet gaan leverebn. tevens moeter an naar de standaarden en aansluit en mogelijkheden van de te leveren diensten gekeken woorden in het sales traject. het gebeurd te vaak dat er zaken worden verkocht welke niet goed geleverd kunnen worden door Delivery. Eeen deal is een ding, maar het leveren van kwaliteit is waar je een klant en lange termijn relatie mee wint. Door het expliciet te maken. Door Contract Reading Sessions. 1 document waarin de afspraken van sales tot in detail zijn beschreven. Allereerst een betere afstemming in het Pre-sales traject. Te vaak worden alleen architecten betrokken, terwijl delivery helemaal niet wordt betrokken. Meer communicatie Overdracht is niet direct terug te brengen tot een moment. Vaak komen er in de transitie/transformaties weer discussies naar boven welke terug te herleiden zijn naar de sales fase. Beperk het daarom niet tot 1 moment, maar vaker wanneer nodig. a) Delivery mee laten lopen in het bid en de onderhandeling bij de klant b) Reele verwachtingen scheppen c) De transitie goed voorbereiden en staffen Beter communiceren en meer de klant tegemoet komen. Delivery en SDM actief aanhaken en zorgen dat zij betrokken blijven tot minimaal signoff transitie. Daarbij duidelijk overdragen van concessies die bewust zijn gedaan om de deal te winnen, concessies die door SDM teruggemanaged moeten worden om dat ze niet geleverd kunnen worden of de concessies waarop Delivery contrete work arrounds moet implemeneteren omdat zij deze services normaal niet leveren. Deze concessies beschrijven in een intern document en ook hier signoff voor halen om overdracht van verantwoording te borgen Het 'transitie'-team voor de overdracht betrekken. Einde sales traject. Daar waar Delivery zijn aangehaakt in het Sales traject en Sales nog een tijdje aangehaakt blijft na de Overdracht is mijn ervaring dat dit goed verloopt. Klanttevredenheid is stijgende want de verwachtingen zijn nog nog steeds hoog Betere communicatie tussen Sales en Delivery. De klantorganisatie moet beter communiceren naar hun medewerkers. Rightshore onderdeel maken van Transitie zodat deze van begin af aan meewerken aan de transitie en klantcontact krijgen en kealiteit bewaken. Draaiboek voor Transitie en Rightshore opstellen binnen Capgemini die voor iedere delivery gelijk is (basis). Duidelijker criteria wat er overgedragen moeten en in welke vorm Formalisering van het overdrachtsproces - het is nu vaak te informeel en vooral niet gestructureerd. Er dienen requirements opgesteld te worden die op executive niveau (zowel Service Delivery Management als Delivery Management) afgetekend dienen te worden. Daarnaast dient het Service Delivery Management team zo snel mogelijk aangesloten te worden op de deal. Zelfs liefst al in de Sales fase. OVerdracht naar delivery IST is niet zo'n grote voor de klant, ze weten wat ze hebben en krijgen in principe nog steeds hetzelfde. Als dat helder is gemaakt tijdens de sales fase is dit geen probleem Direct vanaf het begin de SDM erbij te betrekken en mee laten denken in de beantwoordingen naar de klant. hij/zij moet tenslotte de valkuilen dichtlopen. We weten nu eenmaal dat er altijd zaken verkocht worden die we niet direct waar kunnen maken, dan is het handig als een SDM vanaf het begin erbij betrokken is. Het liefste ook een Service Coordinator aanhaken voor de operatie en inregelen van de transitie. Denk aan je processen! Door techneuten bij de Sales te betrekken opdat er geen (technische) afspraken/beloftes gemaakt worden die naderhand niet na te komen zijn. Goede communicatie en laat de klant real time zien wat ze krijgen Nauwe samenwerking tussen Sales & Overdracht, waarbij alle klant aspecten worden belicht en vertaald in geleverde diensten, hoe klein ook. Heldere intake van diensten, en dit vertalen in PDC, welke bestaat uit zoveel mogelijk std bouw-blokken. Meer overleg, zodat er meer begrip voor elkaar gaat ontstaan. Meer betrokkenheid, zodra de kans van succes groter is Delivery meer betrokken laten zijn bij het bid traject en alleen datgene aanbieden wat op dat voor Delivery mogelijk is om te doen. sales betrokkenheid na de overdracht en actief beheer van enkele key-spelers bij klant. Standaardisatie van het proces, inclusief documentatie

-76-

Zaken als gezamelijke contractreading, architect vanuit Sales die ook voor uitvoering verantwoordelijk is enz Duidelijke afspraken met de klant. Vooral vooraf. Wat wordt van iedereen verwacht. Verkleinen van verschillen van wat beloofd wordt en wat daadwerkelijk gerealiseerd kan worden tijdens transitie. Hier zit nu vaak een te groot verschil tussen waardoor de klant er vaak achter komt een niet zo goede deal gesloten te hebben afgesloten dan in eerste instantie is verkocht. Binnen mijn eigen bedrijf: een formalisering van plan van aanpak, aangeboden oplossing enz. in een "hand-over package". Nu is het vaak zo dat er slechts bij toeval een linking pin tussen het solutioning (sales) team en het implementatie team is in de vorm van een specifieke persoon. Dat kan op een meer mature manier veel beter. Meer communicatie tussen sales en delivery over realistische invulling kontrakt. Pre-sales perceptiemanagement Beter onze contracten in elkaar zetten. Momenteel zijn onze contracten veel te open. Klant zegt A, maar wij zeggen B, en het contract is 1 grote open gaten kaas. Waardoor we op onze kosten toch A moeten gaan doen. In sales fase meer aandacht voor standaarddienstverlening en de gemaakte afspraken helder maken (ook van datgene wat niet in de SLA staat). Diegene die betrokken zijn bij de Sales mee laten draaien bij de overdracht. Nu zijn de solution architects weer bezig met andere deals en wordt het zaakje over de muur gezet. Hierbij komt de ontvangende partij met vragen te staan die weer bij de klant worden opgehaald. Deze ervaart dat als erg storend en vraagd zich dan ook terrecht af of ze wel een juiste beslissing hebben gemaakt! -gt Zie ik al jaren binnen Capgemini gebeuren. Gap tussen Solution architects en Delivery is zeer groot ! Doen! Proces formaliseren, uitdragen en bewaken dat het wordt uitgevoerd. Key personen uit het sales proces zoals architect, SDM, transitiemanager, programmamanager, enz moeten verantwoordelijkheid nemen voor het implementeren wat er bedacht is in het sales proces. Sales mederesultaatverplichtend laten zijn Overdracht en tevens de klanttevredenheid van die Overdracht mee laten wegen in de salesbonus voor de deal Duidelijke afspraken maken wat wel/niet bij de overdracht hoort en dit ondersteunen met bv een ckecklist. Het resultaat van de overdracht vastleggen en aftekenen zodat hier achteraf geen zinloze discussies over gaan ontstaan. ® Als Sales op dat moment een OTACE zou vragen heb je een goed meet moment voor afronding van die ® fase. Op hetzelfde moment (of kort daarna) zou Overdracht ook een OTACE moeten vragen. Daar staan waarschijnlijk andere aandachtsgebieden en wegingen in. kwaliteitszorg op basis van interne klantgrichtheid In de overdrachtsfase moet vaak de oude omgeving beheerd worden. Er is vaak weinig tijd om hier kennis over op te doen zodat men op de werkvloer niet weet hoe alles werkt. Tevens is er weinig bekend over afspraken die gemaakt zijn tussen sales en beide service organisaties. Managen van de verwachtingen na het sales proces bij outsourcer maar ook bij klanten. Duidelijkheid over wat er in Codec is afgesproken en effect op kosten van de dienstverlening. tot in detail formaliseren, daarover communiceren en rapporteren Rechtstreekse communicatie richting de klanten vwb ICT wijzigingen, dmv koppeling Dictu aan Capgemini communicatie medewerker Door meer te sturen op het aanbieden van diensten in plaats van dat er producten genoemd worden in een aanbieding die we "moeten" gaan gebruiken. Als er toch producten genoemd worden, dan zou daar een uitleg bij moeten waarom er voor een product gekozen is en waarom andere producten niet gekozen zijn. Echter dit is juist iets wat in een Detail Design zou moeten staan, want dat is het technisch ontwerp (Het High Level Design document zou zelfs geen producten moeten bevatten, maar een functieomschrijving van de diensten die aan de klant geboden worden). Betere borging van de kennis, centrale opslag van alle info op een teamroom, beschikbaar blijven van solution architects voor de delivery organisatie. Risk log verduidelijken. Door delivery te laten participeren in het sales proces. En vanuit sales een verantwoordelijkheid te nemen in delivery (voor bijvoorbeeld 1 jaar). Bijvoorbeeld een solution architect. Op dit moment worden de sales-bids bij Capgemini al veel beter 'ge-staffed' met delivery. Door de sales verantwoordelijke de opdracht te geven minimaal tijdens de transformatie betrokken te laten zijn bij de klant. Daarnaast dient de sales verantwoordelijke de opdracht te krijgen om een overdrachtsdocument te overleggen aan de service delivery manager, waaronder de Codec en de vertaling naar pricing wordt overgedragen Delivery beter betrekken bij de oplossing die aan de klant verkocht wordt/is. als de bonus sales alleen wordt uitgekeerd als de overdracht aan bepaalde eisen heeft voldaan, waaronder plaatsvinden van client understanding sessie, contract reading sessie, overdracht van risk en issue logs Betere afspraken tussen klant en Sales over de inhoud van de overdracht. Tijdens de daadwerkelijke overdracht komen soms "verborgen" diensten mee of wordt de scope uitgebreid wat veelal leidt tot vertragingen in het traject en daarmee de klanttevredenheid beïnvloedt. Tijdens de Sales fase meer betrokkenheid van projectteam of operatie gewenst. Kan het wel wat verkocht is? Soms is sales een organisatie "op hol geslagen architecten". De meest mooie oplossingen worden bedacht die in de praktijk niet of nauwelijks mogelijk zijn. Het wordt verkocht en dan begint de

-77-

ellende. Probeer in BID trajecten process mensen met delivery gedachten mee te nemen in discussie tijdens een BIDtraject duidelijker standaard voor op welke punten in de overdracht zaken moeten vastliggen (vooral tbv beheer. overdracht naar een migratie projectteam is makkelijker, aangezien die flexibeler zijn qua organisatie. die gaan dan ook vaak direct aan de haal met een nieuwe klant, en de teams die later de omgeving moeten gaan beheren (veel strakker georganiseerd, ivm india component etc.) moeten dan achteraf constateren dat er veel aannames gedaan zijn, en dat zaken al voldongen feit zijn. Heldere "to the point" overdrachtsdocumentatie, die aan vormvereisten voldoet, bv: *Goedgekeurd solution document waarin op traceerbare wijze is vastgelegd welke klantbehoeften, eisen en wensen hebben geleid tot de solution. *Bijgewerkt risk,issue en assumption log, waar actief op gestuurd is. Dit bevat alle gevoeligheden, die in de salesfase niet altijd extern gecommuniceerd kunnen worden, maar die wel cruciaal zijn voor de daaropvolgende periode. Als een transitie manager niet meteen weet waar de schoen wringt, dan kan hij er ook niet op sturen. Deze logs worden bij voorkeur bijgehouden in een 'business applicatie', ipv in spreadsheetjes. Nota bene: Uit ervaring weet ik dat het bijhouden van risico analyses geen hobby is van sales omdat het de overdraagbaarheid bemoeilijkt. Constructief overleg over risicolog en risicobeheersende maatregelen (incl. financiele voorzieningen) tussen sales en delivery zijn aan te raden. Het risklog zou eigenlijk vanaf lead tot rundown moeten worden bijgehouden en regelmatig op de agenda van senior management moeten komen te staan. duidelijk overdrachtsdocument en risk & issue log opstellen waarin de afspraken staan. sales verantwoordelijk houden en pas bonus uitbetalen als de delivery soll goed draait. Transitie, Service Delivery en Delivery actief betrekken al actief betrekken bij Sales-traject. Sales zou meer verantwoordelijk moeten zijn voor het gehele traject. Nu is het snel scoren en wegwezen, waarbij soms gewoon onzin wordt verkocht. En bij de transitie/ transformatie blijkt in voorkomende gevallen beloften niet nagekomen kunnen worden, omdat deze nooit realistisch zijn geweest. Dit zie ik bijna bij ieder gescoord contract misgaan. De resultaten van de RUN (klanttevredenheid, servicelevels, bonus/males) onderdeel maken van de Sales KPI's / target's. Sales bonus uitbetalen na x jaar (1?) goede RUN. Overdracht dient al in de Sales fase betrokken te worden in het bid. Bv. door overdracht verantwoordelijk te maken in het bid traject voor het reviewen van onderdelen waarvoor zij later verantwoordelijk gaan zijn

-78-

Questions regarding the handshake between Transfer and Transformation

Valid

Missing Total

Frequency Yes a proper handshake 20 Yes but no proper handshake 70 No handshake 45 Total 135 System 16 151

Percent 13,2 46,4 29,8 89,4 10,6 151

Valid Percent 14,8 51,9 33,3 100,0

Cumulative Percent 14,8 66,7 100,0

100,0

Are you experiencing a handshake between Transfer and Transformation?

Valid

Missing Total

Very high decrease Decrease Neutral Increase Very high increase Total System

Frequency 1 4 12 49 21 87 64 151

Percent ,7 2,6 7,9 32,5 13,9 57,6 42,4 151

Valid Percent 1,1 4,6 13,8 56,3 24,1 100,0

Cumulative Percent 1,1 5,7 19,5 75,9 100,0

100,0

Does the handshake between Transfer and Transformation have influence on customer satisfaction?

Valid

Missing Total

No Influence Low Influence Influence High influence Very high influence Total System

Frequency 4 42 31 9 0 86 65 151

Percent 2,6 27,8 20,5 6,0 0 57,0 43,0 151

Valid Percent 4,7 48,8 36,0 10,5 0 100,0

Cumulative Percent 4,7 53,5 89,5 100,0 100,0

100,0

Do you experience an increase or decrease of the customer satisfaction during the handshake between of Transfer and Transformation?

-79-

Hoe kan het proces tussen Overdracht en Transformatie volgens jou worden verbeterd? Door de betrokkenheid van de SDM & DM tijdens de Transitie & Transformatie planning en uitvoering fase kan (gekoppeld met een duidelijk acceptatiecriteria) een soepele overdracht gebeuren. Afhankelijk van de aanpak. Door de klant te betrekken en toiegevoegde waarde te laten zien kan dit een succesvol traject zijn, vaak zie je echter dat er weinig wordt geinvesteerd of het geld van de transitie op is waardoor er half werk wordt geleverd waarvan de rest van de run nasleep wordt gevoeld. (penny wise pound foolish). de uitvoerende/bouwende mensen meer met de klant en het oude personeel laten praten, de 'oude' beheerders meer bij de transformatie betrekken. De opdrachtgever \ klant de communicatie naar haar medewerkers laten verzorgen met realistische verhalen en argumenten. Duidelijk structuur en governance aangeven en hoe wensen en verzoeken ingediend dienen te worden. Zorgdragen voor betere planning. Het kan niet zo zijn dat alles gisteren klaar moet zijn. De processen die zijn afgesproken lopen vaak niet. Service Desk (IST & SOLL), 2e lijns (IST & SOLL) en 3e lijns (IST & SOLL) gaan (soms zelfs volledig) langs elkaar heen. Zo raakt de eindgebruiker vaak gefrustreerd omdat het òf heel lang duurt voordat ze geholpen worden, en/of dat het heel lang duurt voor er een oplossing komt, òf überhaubt met hem/haar contact op wordt genomen. De buy-in van de klant (stakeholders en key-users) voor de transformatie moet duidelijk geborgd zijn. De "Klant" moet voor Capgemini kiezen voor de Transformatie oplossing en de ontvlechting en overdracht is de weg er naar toe. a) Transformatie is de periode na transitie. Dat is ligt verder in tijd na het sles moment. De invloed van Sales is dan al een beetje weggezakt en transitie is het referentie kader. De transformatie belofte van de sales fase is toch vaak al wat softer zonder directe business cases dus het kwaliteitsoordeel van de klant voor transformatie hangt aan het kersvers delivery management. Het vertrouwen van de transitie = het aanvangsvertrouwen voor de transformatie. b) Het transformatie proces moet voordelen voor de klant hebben en niet alleen dienen voor onze marge verbetering. In de transformatie moet je CBE/Partnership daadwerkelijk invulling geven. Meer naar de wensen van de klant luisteren en meer communiceren Van te voren goed afspreken wat de mogelijkheden zijn voor overdracht zodat het plan daarop kan worden afgestemd Betere communicatie een meer meedenken met de klant Er is vaak geen sprake van een duidelijke scheidslijn tussen de twee Een juiste projectleiding ontbreekt soms Beter verwachtingenmanagement bij de klant vooraf Het projectteam zou de documentatie van de overdracht beter geregeld moeten hebben. Betere begeleiding nieuwe collegae Scope transitieplan dekt meer van wat verkocht is Meer aandacht besteden aan test groepen vanuit de gebruikers. Over het geheel genomen zijn de gebruikers bij de transities veel te weinig betrokken en worden de tests meestal over een te korte periode en met een te selectieve groep uitgevoerd. Duidelijke communicatie ontbreekt vaak naar de eindgebruikers. Blijven delen van informatie en het kort houden van lijnen. Daarnaast zou je kunnen overwegen om medewerkers over te laten vloeien tussen de twee trajecten om zodoende kennis te borgen. Juiste en volledige communicatie naar de medewerkers waar de tranformatie op van toepassing is. De sales architecten betrokken houden bij de transformatie (bijv. als architect) maar met name zorgen dat in de sales fase er goed afstemming is met toekomstige technische delivery tak Ook hier geldt dat delivery beter aangehaakt moet worden in relatie met het transitieteam. Ook het Service Management team moet beter aanhaken. Nu worden tijdens transitie zaken afgesproken met de klant die veelal weer afwijken met wat er bijvoorbeeld in het BID stond. Door aan de basis al de juiste afspraken te hebben (die nagekomen kunnen worden) Geen onrealistische afspraken maken. Hierdoor komt er later in de keten dus geen lijk uit de kast. Wij moesten bv in opdracht van Cap data opleveren, zoals welke outlet zit waar op de swich en wat voor hard ware hangt eraan. We hebben wel 5 keer met een lijstje rond moeten lopen om de data op te hoesten. Het geeft een beeld bij de klant dat men niet precies weet wat men wilt en daar door krijg je ook minder vertrouwen Gebruikmaken van zo veel mogelijk default Building Blocks, voor het leveren van de gevraagde Services. Vervolgens kan over het overgebleven deel van de Service de klant-delta worden bepaald, en kan er gefocust worden op het klant specifieke deel, dit is m.i. de grootste component in klanttevredenheid. Meer samenwerking, gaat het succes meer vergroten. Met name door de klant beter te ondersteunen in hun interne communicatie processen, en dat zelfs te monitoren. Vanuit perspectief van IOS blijkt dat zodra de opleverdatum van de transformatie is verstreken de hele handel over de muur wordt geslingerd en Delivery verantwoordelijk is. Documentatie is vaak een onderschoven item gebleken wat voor langere doorlooptijden zorgt voor bijv. incidenten, changes, etc.

-80-

Delivery direct betrekken bij, en gedurende de tansformatie al Delivery verantwoordelijk maken voor nieuwe onderdelen van de klant zorgt in mijn optiek voor een betere overdracht en dus hogere mate van klanttevredenheid. Doel(en) en status veel te licht geschreven c.q. toegelicht. Standaardisatie van het proces inclusief documentatie Continuïteit van de teams; meer helderheid van de nieuwe situatie/relatie geven waarbij wij pas overgaan als de klant zijn demand organisatie heeft opgezet en deze door ONS is akkoord bevonden. Hetzelfde als in vorige vraag. Beter info naar de klant en de werknemers. Duidelijke afspraken. Als de klant ontevreden is geworden dan is dit in een eerder stadium gebeurt. Bij de constatering dat de commecieel gesloten deal niet aansluit wat delivery voor ze gaan doen. de Overdracht en Transformatie heeft hier niet veel invloed meer op. Andermaal: formaliseren dmv. een hand-over package. Daarnaast een policy hanteren van "standaard diensten leveren tenzij er geen fit is". Daarnaast moeten die standaard diensten ingekaderd worden door wat ze wel standaard kunnen leveren, niet door alle andere (aansluit- en lever-)mogelijkheden expliciet uit te sluiten en af te kaderen. Beter onze contracten in elkaar zetten. Momenteel zijn onze contracten veel te open. Klant zegt A, maar wij zeggen B, en het contract is 1 grote open gaten kaas. Alles dus goed uitwerken op papier. En zorgen dat dit jurisch dicht zit Vanuit de transitie moet al contact gezocht worden met de verschillende Delivery teams. Belangrijk is het aanhaken van de proces manager. Starten met een kick off en vertellen wat het Plan van Aanpak is, wat er natuurlijk moet zijn. Ik zie tot nu toe slechts focus op het technische gebeuren en de processen en de Servicedesk komen veel te laat in het verhaal voor. Dit raakt de klant en single point of contact is afhankelijk van informatie obv processen/ procedures en WI. Solution architects niet alleen een sales pet opzetten maar het HLD laten opstellen en een lead zijn binnen de transformatie. Hierdoor is de koppeling tussen wat er verkocht is en wat er geleverd gaat worden meer in lijn. Het gaat hier met name over de kennis van de IST voor de transformatie. Hoe krijg je de kennis vanuit de IST die nodig is voor de transformatie zo goed mogelijk boven tafel. Meestal gebeurd dit in een discovery fase echter hier ontbreken goede standaarden voor en de medewerkers die het moeten doen zijn hier niet in getrained. Het principe "learning on the job" is hier gevaarlijk. Hiernaast draaien veel ICT organisatie op extrenen die snel afvloeien waardoor belangrijke kennis verloren gaat en dit gaat problemen opleveren in de het verdere traject. Over het algemeen komt het wel goed maar dit kost altijd meer geld en doorlooptijd. Voor de klant moet het helder zijn wat de nieuwe centrale ingangspunt is bij Capgemini en bij de klant zelf. Begint al in de bid-fase met het betrekken van de uiteindelijke beheerorganisatie in het bid. Daarin zouden ze zelfs op bepaalde aspecten een Go/NoGo moeten kunnen geven die bindend is. Idem dito bij Overdracht naar Transformatie. Hetzelfde als bij de vorige overdracht [Duidelijke afspraken maken wat wel/niet bij de overdracht hoort en dit ondersteunen met bv een ckecklist. Het resultaat van de overdracht vastleggen en aftekenen zodat hier achteraf geen zinloze discussies over gaan ontstaan.] Door meer te benadrukken dat dit ook project heet. Maar bij veranderingsprojecten worden mensen (klanten) verander-moe. Het is dus belangrijk om de overgang zo gauw mogelijk te maken zodat Overdracht zo kort mogelijk duurt. De kwaliteit en volledigheid van de informatie tav de dienstverlening moet worden verbeterd. Het ontbreekt ook aan priorisering, welke zaken zijn echt belangrijk voor de klant en liggen tijdens transformatie op het kritieke pad? kwaliteitszorg op basis van Interne klantgerichtheid Het sneller aanpassen aan de nieuwe regels en procedures. Goede voorbereiding kan de overgangsperiode (periode waarin procedures oud en nieuw door elkaar gaan lopen) verkorten. Kennis vanuit de oude organisatie over de achtergronden hoe de dienstverlening was voor de overgang borgen en aanhaken bij de voorbereiding en uitvoering van de transitie. Transitie niet beschouwen als een apart project naast de bestaande organisatie, maar als een belangrijk en ingrijpend veranderingsproces binnen de organisatie. Betrekken van Delivery bij de transitie en voorbereiden van de overgang van Transitie naar Soll. verregaand formaliseren (niet alleen tussen CG en klant, maar ook CG intern), hierover communiceren en rapporteren. Aanstellen van een "onafhankelijke rol" om de formalisering intern CG te bewaken Volgens mij niet. Het is voor klanten namelijk ontzettend wennen dat ze geen hulp aan hun bureau meer krijgen. Ik heb bij andere klanten al gezien dat dit jaren kan duren. Bij de overgang naar Transformatie moet ook duidelijk of de klant en haar gebruikers goed geinformeerd zijn over de veranderingen. Op hoog nivo wordt er wel gecommuniceerd, maar vaak vergeet de klant zelf haar gebruikersorganisatie in te lichten, waardoor gebruikers geconfronteerd worden met veranderingen. Dat hebben wij als capgemini niet altijd in de hand, maar het is wel van invloed op de klanttevredenheid, omdat de projectmedewerkers juist met de gebruikers te maken hebben. Capgemini dient meer aandacht te besteden aan de business impact van de klant kant. De demand organisatie van de klant kant is vaak niet professioneel genoeg om die vertaalslag te maken. Hiervan heeft Capgemini erg veel last. Wanneer Cappgemini samen met de demand organisatie de nieuwe

-81-

werkwijze en afspraken met de business bespreken zal de gap en onbegrip minder groot zijn Delivery beter betrekken bij en informeren over wat er daadwerkelijk aan de klant beloofd is. Beter delen met delivery wat de klantverwachting is. Wat helpt is mensen van de nieuwe delivery eigennaar te maken en mee te nemen in projecten. De heren die het straks gaan beheren moeten een centraal onderdeel zijn van het programma met ondersteund professionals. wederom goed overdrachtsdocument opstellen, checks uitvoeren op diverse terreinen om te controleren of volgens specs is geleverd, risk & issuelog opstellen, duidelijke restpunten overdrachtsfase opstellen en bepalen wie de verantwoordelijk draagt op operationeel en financieel gebied. Audit uitvoeren in hoeverre huidige stand van zaken afwijkt van oorspronkelijk opgesteld contract en indien nodig contract aanpassen met de klant Er wordt in veel gevallen dienstverlening bedacht/verkocht die nog niet volwassen is binnen Capgemini Infra. Bovendien wordt voor elke deal "het wiel opnieuw uitgevonden", er vindt nauwelijks herbruik plaats van bestaande concepten. Gevolg hiervan is dat de transformatiefase langer duurt en/of dat de kwaliteit lager is dan verwacht. Hier speelt ook mee dat de regieorganisatie aan klantzijde in veel gevallen onvoldoende volwassen is, of niet ingericht op goede begeleiding van de dienstverlening aan interne klanten. Al deze aspecten moeten voor transformatie sterk worden verbeterd. Duidelijke communicatie naar klant én eindgebruiker over wat hij/zij mag verwachten. Zie mijn vorige betoog. Het grootste probleem zit `m in de beloften/ afspraken die zijn gemaakt die in "de run" niet waar te maken zijn. [Sales zou meer verantwoordelijk moeten zijn voor het gehele traject. Nu is het snel scoren en wegwezen, waarbij soms gewoon onzin wordt verkocht. En bij de transitie/ transformatie blijkt in voorkomende gevallen beloften niet nagekomen kunnen worden, omdat deze nooit realistisch zijn geweest. Dit zie ik bijna bij ieder gescoord contract misgaan.] Zie mijn opmerking over Sales, die geld hier ook. [De resultaten van de RUN (klanttevredenheid, servicelevels, bonus/males) onderdeel maken van de Sales KPI's / target's. Sales bonus uitbetalen na x jaar (1?) goede RUN.] Opleveren van meer en vooral betere documentatie. Governance staat sterk als een huis. Communicatie lijnen zijn duidelijk en helder. De discovery fase is opgepakt met alle punten opgelost. SLA, DAP en financiele afspraken zijn helder mbt run en project. Delivery stuurt het transformatie project aan en er werken voornamelijk ook de mensen vanuit delivery in de transformatie fase mee.

-82-

Questions regarding the handshake between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’

Valid

Missing Total

Frequency Yes a proper handshake 31 Yes but no proper handshake 68 No handshake 32 Total 131 System 20 151

Percent 20,5 45,0 21,2 86,8 13,2 151

Valid Percent 23,7 51,9 24,4 100,0

Cumulative Percent 23,7 75,6 100,0

100,0

Are you experiencing a handshake between Transformation en Delivery ‘soll’ ?

Cumulative Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Very high decrease 0 0 0,0 Decrease 3,3 5,3 5,3 Neutral 8,6 13,7 18,9 Increase 28,5 45,3 64,2 Very high increase 22,5 35,8 100,0 Total 62,9 100,0 Missing System 37,1 Total 151 100,0 Does the handshake between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ have influence on customer satisfaction? Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid No Influence 12 7,9 12,6 12,6 Low Influence 40 26,5 42,1 54,7 Influence 28 18,5 29,5 84,2 High influence 14 9,3 14,7 98,9 Very high influence 1 ,7 1,1 100,0 Total 95 62,9 100,0 Missing System 56 37,1 Total 151 151 100,0 Does the handshake between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ have influence on customer satisfaction? Frequency 0 5 13 43 34 95 56 151

-83-

Hoe kan het proces tussen Transformatie en Delivery SOLL volgens jou worden verbeterd? door te zorgen dat er ook voldoende medewerkers zijn om het SOLL gedeelte in het begin in goede banen te sturen.. en al zeker niet het project afbreken voordat alle project zaken zijn afgehandeld. eerdere communicatie tussen transformatie en Soll. Ik zie vaak een mismatch tussen de deliverables van transformatie en Soll. Vaak veel open restpunten en verrassingen (lijken uit de kast). In de run moeten vaak nog verschillende verbeter trajecten worden opgezet. Bij de bouw meer de beherende partij erbij betrekken De ontvlechting waar je het in de Inleiding over had, maar die in deze vragenlijst verder niet terugkomt, is vaak het meest cruciale deel en de belangrijkste oorzaak van onrust, gevolgd door de transformatie. Overdracht naar Delivery wordt dan vaak als een verademing gezien, omdat de stabiliteit van het geheel wordt hersteld. Tav de inleiding: ontvlechting, overdracht, transformatie en overdracht naar delivery kunnen in verschillende volgorden uitgevoerd worden. proces en changemanagement en governance goed inrichten. Duidelijke governance, heldere communicatie en snelle besluiten. 99 van de 100 klanten (end-users) verwachten andere 'dingen' dan er geleverd wordt. M.a.w. communicatie naar de eindgebruikers is ronduit slecht. Dat ligt niet altijd aan Capgemini, maar vaak aan 'de laag' tussen Capgemini en de eindgebruiker. Daardoor worden er vaak ad-hoc oplossingen geëist door de klant of onmogelijke oplossingen aangedragen vanuit Service Management (m.a.w. 99 van de 100 keer zonder overleg met Delivery of het technisch al dan niet mogelijk is). Eerdere betrokkenheid van Delivery in Sales en Transitie fase. Na de Sales fase moeten Transitie en Delivery duidelijke en formele Tollgate criteria afspreken voor er aan de transitie wordt gestart. Dit maakt de overdracht van transitie/transformatie duidelijke en makkelijker voor alle betrokkenen. Belangrijkste is een goede gezamelijke aanbieding aan het begin en dan stick to the plan!! Cultuurverschil meer communicatie Betere communicatie en meer meedenken met de klant. Wederom in transitiefase, SOLL beheer betrekken. Niet in de rol van Projectlid in transitie, maar in de rol van beheer ter acceptatie. duidelijk afbakening en vastleggen van restpunten, ook duidelijk afgebakend. Er is altijd sprake van aanloopproblemen die de klanttevredenheid nadelig beinvloeden. Klant meer betrekken (terugkoppeling, tussentijds onderzoek [maandelijks/kwartaal] om zodoende te kunnen bijsturen). Over het algemeen komt na Transitie ook Rightshore in de picture, veelal loopt Rightshore achter de feiten aan omdat deze niet van begin af aan onderdeel van Transitie zijn. Documentatie en klantkennis blijft achter wat kwaliteit niet ten goede komt, resultaat: ontevreden klant. Duidelijker criteria op basis waarvan beheer een nieuwe of bestaande omgeving accepteert. Acceptatiecriteria beheer duidelijk aan begin transitie. Meer aandacht besteden aan test groepen vanuit de gebruikers. Over het geheel genomen zijn de gebruikers bij de transities veel te weinig betrokken en worden de tests meestal over een te korte periode en met een te selectieve groep uitgevoerd. Duidelijke communicatie ontbreekt vaak naar de eindgebruikers. De afspraken betreft de te leveren dienstverlening is vaak niet bekend bij de eindgebruikers. Kennis borging is cruciaal. Beter afstemmen van de door delivery benodigde functionele en technische eisen voor de gerealiseerde transformatie omgeving, en dit via een gestructureerd proces. Acceptatiecriteria zijn vaak onvoldoende uitgewerkt, en het overdrachtsproces tussen transformatie project en delivery is niet (zwaar onvoldoende!) gestructureerd. Wederom opstellen van requierements waar de overdracht aan dient te voldoen. Deze wederom laten aftekenen door executives op account. -Duidelijke mijlpalen afspreken per overdrachtsmoment -Helder acceptatiecriteria per overdrachtsmoment vaststellen. -verwachtingen van de (nieuwe) klant helder (concreet) maken aan het begin van het traject. Klant gaat (terrecht) van uit dat de bouwers (transformatie) alles 100% overdragen naar delivery Soll, dit is (helaas) niet altijd het geval. Optimalisatie kan door toekomstige delivery tak onderdeel te maken van het bouwteam. De delivery organisatie moet al in het sales traject betrokken worden. Al in de 1e fasen moet gecontroleerd worden welke richtin de klant op kan gaan (volledig standariseren tot volledig custom build) Betere integratie. Delivery bij Transformatie betrekken zodat later niet de handel over de schutting wordt gegooid. minimaal de oude kwaliteit handhaven, gebruikers hebben dit gevoel nu niet. De ondersteunende processen moeten correct ingezet worden om de gevraagde services te leveren. Ook hier speelt het definieren van std Building Blocks een grote rol. Als Capgemini IOS zouden we 80 % van de services std moeten leveren, opdat we kunnen focussen op de resterende 20 % die klantspecifiek is.

-84-

Nog te weinig ervaring in om daar iets over te roepen. Is bijna niet te verbeteren. Transformatie=verandering, mensen willen per definitie geen verandering, Als het puur om klant tevredenheid zou gaan, doe dan een "big bang" dan kan het vervolgens alleen nog maar beter worden Delivery zou al deel moeten uitmaken van de transformatie activiteiten. de overdracht naar delivery gaat altijd stroef. eerder of later betrekken van delivery heeft daar geen invloed op. Het is en blijft een verandering voor de delivery organisatie die als lijn organisatie opereert en veranderingen brengt weerstand met zich mee. Het transitie traject is op project basis sterk op verandering gefocused. Dit sluit niet op elkaar aan. verbetering moet gezocht worden in duidelijkere standaard werkwijze van delivery. Deze blijkt niet altijd standaard te zijn en bij elke deal verschillend Een goede overdracht is er een waar leden van het transformatie-team vanuit het delivery team gerecruteerd zijn (niet allen, maar een smaldeel). Dit zou de standaard aanpak moeten zijn bij dit soort trajecten. Transitie kan alles snel goed zonder changes. En als het Delivery is, dan kan alles niet meer in eens snel. Immers dat komt het change process naar voren. En dat is stroperig.... Ook hier geldt het belang van een goede kick off met een duidelijk plan van aanpak. Aanhaken Processen en Servicedesk. Zie mijn voorgaande visie Niet alleen het technische kunstje is van belang. Waar gewerkt wordt, gelden processen en belangrijk is vooral de informatie aan de kant van de klant. Bedrijfsprocessen zijn het grootste belang voor de klant. Deze komen altijd terug in SLA en PDC/DAP. Wij zijn veel teveel gefocust op onze technische zaken. Vanuit Delivery mensen laten aanhaken in de projecten. Inhuur gebruiken om beheertaken te laten uitvoeren binnen delivery ( of nog meer door IMOC laten uitvoeren) en niet zoals nu de inhuur gebruiken binnen de projecten waardoor de kennis verloren gaat als de zzp-ers weer naar een andere klant gaan... Betere overdracht, door meer documentatie. Maar wat nog beter is, soms worden zaken opgeleverd, waarvan we later in de beheerfase horen dat het niet is ingericht zoals de klant het gewenst heeft. Vastleggen, conformeren van partijen en bewaken uitvoering Voor alle medewerkers moet het helder zijn wat en waar ze terecht komen. De rol van de medewerkers moet helder zijn voor medewerkers en oud collega's. Klant - leverancier relatie. Hetzelfde als de vorige overdracht, uiteraard met een andere checklist. Delivery heeft vaak te slikken wat er naar hun is 'overgedragen'. Men komt er helaas in de praktijk achter indien de overdracht niet voldoende is geweest. De klanttevredenheid wordt hier niet beter op want je zit inmiddels in de run fase Door Delivery SOLL zo vroeg mogelijk te laten aanhaken. Eigenlijk zou het moeten lijken alsof Transformatie nog steeds beheer doet. Een betere afstemming tussen wat er door de klant is gevraagd en wat Delivery kan/gaat leveren. De dienstverlening van Delivery beter vastleggen zodat de voorkant (sales) een betere inschatting kan maken. Je wilt dit voorkomen namelijk : "How come we sometimes overpromise but under deliver?" De afspraken over wat er nu werkelijk geleverd moet worden zijn vaak onvoldoende helder (beschreven in het contract) bij alle partijen (klant, priject team, delivery) en schuiven constant omdat de klant geen duidelijke regie heeft. Hierdoor is delivery vaak als uiteindelijk leverende partij lange tijd bezig beloftes waar te maken c.q. de omgeving passend te maken voor de gewenste functionaliteit. Met alle frustraties aan beide zijden tot gevolg. kwaliteitszorg op basis van Interne klantgerichtheid SOLL omgevingen worden vaak gebouwd door speciale project teams. Hierbij zijn soms werkzaamheden en configuratie aanpassingen die niet gedocumenteerd zijn. Er wordt te weinig dokumentatie opgeleverd aan het beheer team. Het beheer team wordt laat of niet in de opbouw betrokken. Het geven van duidelijke requierements vanuit Delivery en Service Delivery waaraan de opgeleverde producten vanuit de Transitie aan moeten voldoen. Een formele acceptatieprocedure vanuit Transitie naar Delivery / Service Delivery, waaronder aandacht voor overdracht van de de moddelen (assewts) waarmee de dienstverlening wordt gerealiseerd en afspraken over de standaard en niet standaared dienstverlening binnen de SLA / SOW; de verantwoordelijkheden tussen Delivery en Service Delivery (Nieuw SLA en SOW). idem Zelfde als hiervoor Delivery SOLL moet eerder in het traject aangehaakt worden. Ervaring is dat klanten toch vaak de nieuwste producten willen hebben, terwijl daar bij delivery niet de juiste kennis/ervaring aanwezig is. Voor hen start de delivery SOLL dus eigenlijk met een soort van training-on-the-job. Vanuit het project mag hier m.i. wel in meegedacht worden door bij de implementatie van nieuwe producten, degene die het bouwt ook een poosje mee te laten draaien in de delivery SOLL zodat hij ook vanuit de delivery kant kan zien wat hij gebouwd heeft en welke problemen er optreden. De best practices van de leverancier (hoe het ingericht zou moeten worden) voldoen niet altijd op het moment dat er 1000-en gebruikers gemigreerd worden. De grootste uitdaging zit 'm meestal in het laten samenwerken van de applicaties op de gebouwde infrastructuur met de diverse componenten (die ook nog weer met elkaar samen moeten werken). voorbeeld: Citrix XenApp6.5 met SCCM en met App-V op 64-bit OS met allerlei exotische applicaties, die business critical zijn. Na transformatie is er meer acceptatie vanuit de klant kant. Stabiliteit van SDM is cruciaal deze overgang is in mijn ogen redelijk goed. In de transformatiefase wordt de delivery naar de klant

-85-

gestabiliseerd. Pas dan vindt de overgang naar SOLL plaats. Acceptatiecriteria delivery ontbreekt op onderdelen. De initiële scope van een Transformatie traject wijzigt altijd. De over te dragen documentatie vanuit Transformatie zal up-to-date moeten zijn, incl. alle uitbreidingen op de scope. Het Transformatie team zou alle activiteiten moeten afronden. Er zouden geen restpunten aan Delivery overgedragen mogen worden omdat Delivery hier onvoldoende resources voor beschikbaar heeft waardoor restpunten lang open blijven staan. Overdracht van werkzaamheden wordt nog al eens vergeten. in eens is het "Soll" zonder dat iedereen daar duidelijk van op de hoogte is. zie overdracht Sales: Delivery SOLL moet eerder als accepterende partij aangehaakt worden in stuurgroepen etc. om meer invloed te hebben op het eindproduct wat na de transformatie nog jaren beheerd moet worden. doel moet niet zijn zo efficient mogelijk te transformeren, maar een zo optimaal mogelijk resultaat uit de HELE life cycle te halen (transformatie + beheer) nu "schuiven" we door de org. structuur nog vaak veel verborgen kosten / problemen van transitie door, waar we beheertechnisch jaren last van hebben (financieel en relationeel). Soms heeft dat natuurlijk een goede reden (bv. klant die nog niet klaar is voor een volgende stap) maar dat moet dan wel ingecaluleerd en gedocumenteerd doorgeschoven worden. De klanttevredenheid wordt niet zozeer bepaald door het overdracht moment. De overdracht van de SOLL aan delivery is helaas een utopische milestone. Verbetering is mogelijk als stuurgroepen harder sturen op inhoudelijk resultaat. Nu wordt gestuurd op tijd en geld. Hierbij speelt een rol dat de oorspronkelijke scope vrijwel nooit accuraat is. De scope creap, die hier logischerwijs uit voortvloeit, wordt vaak niet onderkend of op een onhandige wijze ingepast in een lopend traject, zonder dat wordt gekeken of de scope aanpassing wel past in het oorspronkelijke plan. Verbetering is verder mogelijk door hardere commitments vanuit 'programma/transitie/projectmanagement' te eisen. Nu worden transitiemanagers en andere projectmedewerkers nog te vaak vervangen of vroegtijdig gedechargeerd, omdat elders meer geld wordt betaald voor de betreffende leden of omdat de problemen in andere trajecten groter zijn.. het is een overdracht binnen delivery die volgens mij goed loopt. Verbeterpunten zitten op het gebied van vastlegging (documentatie en procedures op orde) en gereed zijn voor het meedraaien in certificeringen zoals SAS70, ISO, etc.. Transformatieprogramma heeft niet als doel om een tevreden klant te bewerkstelligen. Doorlooptijd en kwantiteit hebben structureel een te hoge prioriteit. We zouden van te voren moeten vaststellen wat de klant tevreden gaat maken en op basis daarvan passende maatregelen nemen om de tevredenheid ten positieve te veranderen gedurende het gehele traject, maar vooral in transitie naar Delivery SOLL De team leider van de transformatie zou in de begin stadium de SOLL beheerders moeten betrekken bij het proces. Duidelijke communicatie naar klant én eindgebruikers wat hij/zij mag verwachten. Al het bekende wijzigt immers en dat is altijd lastig. Beter de verwachting managen aan de klant kant, na transformatie krijgt de klant minder aandacht (project wordt ontbonden) en staande organisatie moet het gaan doen Vroeger aanhaken van Delivery (via de Delivery Architecten). Delivery Architecten zouden de verantwoordelijkheid moeten hebben over HLD's en DD's. Nu is dat vaak een ingehuurde architect van ITS die niet bekend is met de way of working en standaarden / richtlijnen binnen Delivery. Aan Delivery kant moet gewerkt worden aan standaarden / richtlijnen en technical baselines, en deze zaken moeten breed gecommuniceerd worden. Transformatie altijd onder aansturing van SOLL Door ook hier SOLL al te betrekken in de transformatie fase. Dit kan door SOLL medewerkers in transformatie fase reeds te laten starten met werkzaamheden. Maar ook door het plannen van goede overdrachtsmomenten en voldoende tijd nemen voor terugkoppeling en een periode na overdracht beschikbaar blijven indien er problemen optreden. Acceptatie criteria worden opgesteld en afgetekend. Tevens wordt de oplevering van de infrastructuur nogmaals getoetst aan de gemaakte afspraken.

-86-

Appendix 12 - Influence of the ‘handshakes’ on Customer Satisfaction One-Sample Test Test Value = 0 Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper

t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Does the handshake between Sales and Transfer have influence on customer satisfaction?

32,859

90

.000

4,055

3,81

4,3

Does the handshake between Transfer and Transformation have influence on customer satisfaction?

32,642

86

.000

4,207

3,95

4,46

Does the handshake between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ have influence on customer satisfaction?

34,788

94

.000

4,474

4,22

4,73

Single sample T-Test regarding the influence of the different ‘handshakes’

-87-

Appendix 13 - Effect on customer satisfaction of the ‘handshakes’ One-Sample Test Test Value = 0

Do you experience an increase or decrease of the customer satisfaction during the handshake between Sales and Transfer? Do you experience an increase or decrease of the customer satisfaction during the handshake between Transfer and Transformation? Do you experience an increase or decrease of the customer satisfaction during the handshake between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’?

Mean Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper

t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

26,548

91

.000

2,478

2,29

2,66

26,583

85

.000

2,477

2,29

2,66

19,395

94

.000

2,379

2,14

2,62

Single sample T-Test regarding the effect of the different ‘handshakes’

-88-

Appendix 14 - Analysis of the open “improvement” questions with regard to the ‘handshakes’ in the questionnaire These tables show an analysis of the given answers of the respondents to the open questions where they could suggest improvements for the ‘handshakes’ between the units in the questionnaire. Improvements with regard to the handshake between Sales and Transfer Term assigned Only offer what can actually be done Use the ‘Building Blocks’ Continue process Contract sales Involve delivery in transition Governance Quality of the people involved Proactive responses Involve Service Coordinator in the sales phase Involve solution architect in the delivery phase Standardization of the process Involve Transfer earlier during the sales phase Alignment expectations internally Alignment of acceptation criteria between the departments Communication of the customer to the internal stakeholders Service instead of product Risk & Issue log Involve Solution architect in the transfer phase Involve the Solution architect in the transition phase Involve transition in sales phase Documentation Write a good Product Service Catalog Involve service delivery manager in the sales phase. Sales bonus bias Involve Sales with transfer phase Involve Sales within transition phase Communication Contract knowledge Alignment of the expectations Standardization Involve delivery in the sales phase Total

-89-

N (Amount) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 9 11 12 13 106

Improvements for the handshake between Transfer and Transformation Term assigned Acceptation criteria for the handshake Audit Making new employees ready for Capgemini Budget issue Building blocks Commitment of the customer Contract re-negotiating Contract management Involve delivery during sales phase Involve Delivery during the transition phase Involve Delivery Manager with the transition Innovation Integration Knowledge transfer Maturity of the customer Risk & issue log Involve sales in the transformation phase Collaboration in the teams Collaboration with the customer Involve service delivery manager during the transition phase Speed Involve the Solution architect during the transformation phase transformative Involve Transfer team during the transformation phase Involve Transformation team in the Transfer phase Sell as service and not a product Quality of the people involved Thinking along with the customer Involve Sales department in transition phase Sales bonus issue Documentation Communication Involve Delivery department during the transformation phase by Transformation Communication of the customer to the customers’ internal stakeholders Alignment of expectations Standardization Governance Total

-90-

N (Amount) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 12 88

Improvements with regard to the handshake between transformation and delivery. Term assigned Building block Business Fit Communication with the customer Link up Delivery in transformation phase to assure criteria for acceptance are followed Delivery responsible for transformation Governance customer Transactional satisfaction research Contract knowledge Cultural Fit with the customer Service and not a product Quality of the people involved Write a good Product Service Catalog Transformation as part of Delivery Communication Communication of the customer to the customers’ stakeholders Involve Delivery during the sales phase Budget Documentation Governance Alignment of expectations Safeguarding knowledge Acceptation criteria internally between the handshake Transformation and Delivery Standardization Involve Delivery during the transformation phase Total

-91-

N (Amount) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 8 9 13 18 94

Appendix 15 – Analysis of the ‘handshakes’ given a bad ‘handshake’ between Sales and Transfer The analysis of the ‘handshakes’ between Transfer and Transformation and the handshake between Transformation and Delivery given a bad handshake between Sales and Transfer Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Yes but no proper 73 100.0 100.0 100.0 handshake Are you experiencing a handshake between Sales and Transfer - Bad handshake between Sales and Transfer

Valid

Frequency

Valid

Yes a proper handshake Yes but no proper handshake No handshake Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

9

12.3

13.2

13.2

43

58.9

63.2

76.5

16

21.9

23.5

100.0

68

93.2

100.0    

Missing

  System Total

5   73

  6.8 100.0

 

Are you experiencing a handshake between Transfer and Transformation?

Frequency

Valid

Yes a proper handshake Yes but no proper handshake No handshake Total

    Missing

System Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

13

17.8

19.4

19.4

42

57.5

62.7

82.1

12

16.4

17.9

100.0

67

91.8

100.0

    6 73

    8.2 100.0

   

Are you experiencing a handshake between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’

-92-

Appendix 16 – Grade compared to the ‘handshakes’ This table shows the different grades compared to the perceived ‘handshakes’

Handshake between Sales and Transfer

Handshake between Transfer and Transformation

Handshake between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’

Yes, a good handshake Yes, a bad handshake No handshake Yes, a good handshake Yes, a bad handshake No handshake Yes, a good handshake Yes, a bad handshake No handshake

-93-

A

B

Grade C D

E

F

2

3

3

6

7

1

4

10

39

14

6

0

8

13

24

4

1

0

1

5

7

4

2

1

7

12

33

10

8

0

5

7

21

7

4

0

5

6

9

7

3

1

3

11

38

8

8

0

5

4

14

5

3

0

Appendix 17 – Deal compared with ‘handshakes’ The difference between employees who voluntarily joined Capgemini and those who joined Capgemini after an outsourcing deal with their former employer (now customer)

No Part of a outsourcing deal

Yes

Total

Count % of total respondents Count % of total respondents Count % of total respondents

Are you experiencing a handshake between the phases Sales and Transfer? Yes, a Yes, but No proper no proper handshake handshake handshake 15 49 36

Total

100

10%

34%

25%

69%

7

24

15

46

5%

16%

10%

32%

22

73

51

146

15%

50%

35%

100%

Experiencing a handshake between Sales and Transfer / Part of an outsourcing deal

No Part of a outsourcing Yes deal Total

Count % of total respondents Count % of total respondents Count % of total respondents

Are you experiencing a handshake between the phases Transfer and Transformation? Yes, a Yes, but No proper no proper handshake handshake handshake 14 50 30

Total

94

10%

37%

22%

70%

6

20

15

41

4%

15%

11%

30%

20

70

45

135

15%

52%

33%

100%

Experiencing a handshake between Transfer and Transformation / Part of an outsourcing deal

No Part of a outsourcing Yes deal Total

Count % of total respondents Count % of total respondents Count % of total respondents

Are you experiencing a handshake between the phases Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’? Yes, a Yes, but No proper no proper handshake handshake handshake 20 52 21

Total

93

15%

40%

16%

71%

11

16

11

38

8%

12%

8%

29%

31

68

32

131

24%

52%

24%

100%

Experiencing a handshake between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ / Part of an outsourcing deal

-94-

Appendix 18 – ‘handshakes’ compared to departments Analysis of the ‘handshakes’ in relation with the different Department HST

Departments

R20 Infrastructure Outsourcing client team R21 Infrastructure Outsourcing Data Center Services R22 Network & Security Services R23 Infrastructure Outsourcing Transition, project & delivery Excellence R24 Infrastructure Outsourcing portfolio management R25 Service desk, Workplace & Service management R40 Transition Management R70 Sales – Business Development R90 Infrastructure Outsourcing Management R92 Human Resource Transitie

HTD

HST, HTT

HTT, HTD

HST, HTT, HTD

X X X X X X X X X X

The various departments and their involvement with the different ‘handshakes’

Department

Are you experiencing a handshake between the phases Sales and Transfer?

R20

R21

R22

R23

R24

R25

R40

R70

R90

R92

Total

3

5

1

1

2

1

1

6

0

2

22

10

34

3

8

3

7

2

4

2

0

73

No handshake

3

24

6

6

0

10

0

0

0

2

51

Total

16

63

10

15

5

18

3

10

2

4

146

Yes, a proper handshake Yes, but no proper handshake

Experiencing a handshake between Sales and Transfer / Department

Department Are you experiencing a handshake between the phases Transfer and Transformati on?

R20

R21

R22

R23

R24

R25

R40

R70

R90

R92

Total

1

7

3

2

2

1

1

2

0

1

20

10

33

3

7

0

9

1

3

2

2

70

No handshake

3

19

4

5

3

5

1

4

0

1

45

Total

14

59

10

14

5

15

3

9

2

4

135

Yes, a proper handshake Yes, but no proper handshake

Experiencing a handshake between Transfer and Transformation / Department

-95-

Department Are you experiencing a handshake between the phases Transformati on and Delivery ‘soll’?

Yes, a proper handshake Yes, but no proper handshake No handshake

Total

R20

R21

R22

R23

R24

R25

R40

R70

R90

R92

Total

0

14

1

4

2

3

1

3

1

2

31

9

34

3

6

3

7

2

2

1

1

68

4

11

6

3

0

4

0

4

0

0

32

13

59

10

13

5

14

3

9

2

3

131

Experiencing a handshake between Transformation and Delivery ‘soll’ / Department

-96-

Bibliography Blackstone, J. H., Cox, J. F., & Schleier, J. G. (2009). A tutorial on project management from a theory of constraints perspective. [Article]. International Journal of Production Research, 47(24), 7029-7046. doi: 10.1080/00207540802392551 Boerner, C. M. (2008). Web Site Will Help You Explore Your Compliance Culture in Terms of Kubler-Ross' Five Stages of Grief and Other Models. [Article]. Journal of Health Care Compliance, 10(2), 37-38. Brown, D., & Wilson, S. (2005). The black book of outsourcing : how to manage the changes, challenges, and opportunities. Hoboken, N,J.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Capgemini. (2010). Finacial Report 2010: Cap Gemini S.A. Delen, D. G. v. (2008). IT Outsourcing - een introductie. Zaltbommel: Van Haren Publishing. Dvir, D., Raz, T., & Shenhar, A. J. (2003). An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success. [Article]. International Journal of Project Management, 21(2), 89. Earl, M. J. (1996). The Risks of Outsourcing IT. [Article]. Sloan Management Review, 37(3), 26-32. Fisher, J. M. Change happens … to people! Fisher, J. M. (2005). A Time for Change? [Article]. Human Resource Development International, 8(2), 257-263. doi: 10.1080/13678860500100665 Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer Relationships. [Article]. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70-87. Gartner. (2011). IT Outsourcing Retrieved 28-12-2011, 2011, from http://www.gartner.com/technology/it-glossary/it-outsourcing.jsp Goldratt, E. M. (2004). The goal : a process of ongoing improvement (3rd ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower. Huang, I. L. (2008). A COGNITIVE EXPLANATION OF THE CORRECTNESS OF INFORMATION REQUIREMENT SPECIFICATIONS. [Article]. Academy of Information & Management Sciences Journal, 11(2), 1-17. Kedia, B. L., & Mukherjee, D. (2009). Understanding offshoring: A research framework based on disintegration, location and externalization advantages. Journal of World Business, 44(3), 250-261. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2008.08.005 Kübler-Ross, E. (1970). On death and dying. New York, NY US: Collier Books/Macmillan Publishing Co. Lee, H. L., & Whang, S. (2000). Information sharing in a supply chain. [Article]. International Journal of Technology Management, 20(3/4), 373. Liker, J. K., & Choi, T. Y. (2004). Building Deep Supplier Relationships. [Article]. Harvard Business Review, 82(12), 104-113. Loh, L., & Venkatraman, N. (1992). Diffusion of Information Technology Outsourcing: Influence Sources and the Kodak Effect. [Article]. Information Systems Research, 3(4), 334-358. OFF-SHORING: AN ELUSIVE PHENOMENON, (2006). Richards, J. (2007). Is Outsourcing Right for Me? (cover story). [Article]. Natural Gas & Electricity, 23(6), 1-7. Schaveling, J. (2008). Tijdelijk leiderschap. Den Haag: Academic Service. Taylor, H. (2006). CRITICAL RISKS IN OUTSOURCED IT PROJECTS: THE INTRACTABLE AND THE UNFORESEEN. [Article]. Communications of the ACM, 49(11), 75-79.

-97-

van der Veen, J. A. A., & Venugopal, V. (2005). Using revenue sharing to create win--win in the video rental supply chain. [Article]. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56(7), 757-762. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601879 Weeks, M. R., & Feeny, D. (2008). Outsourcing: FROM COST MANAGEMENT TO INNOVATION AND BUSINESS VALUE. [Article]. California Management Review, 50(4), 127-146.

-98-